Tag Archives: Defamation

[Statement] Solidarity for Human Rights Activist Andy Hall! -MFA

Posted on by Leave a comment

Solidarity for Human Rights Activist Andy Hall!
Withdraw all Lawsuits and Ensure Independent Investigation on the Conditions of Workers in Natural Fruit!

MFAThe Migrant Forum in Asia (MFA) is in solidarity with partner British human rights activist Andy Hall as he faces a criminal defamation lawsuit filed by Natural Fruit, a pineapple processing factory, in Thailand.

Mr. Hall has been an advocate of migrants’ rights in Thailand for almost a decade and recently exposed through evidence-based and reliable research the human rights abuses committed by Natural Fruit to its employees in its Pranburi plant in Prachuapkirikhan Province of Thailand.

Andy Hall made significant contributions to a report published by Finnwatch in January 2013. The report entitled, Cheap has a High Price: Responsibility Problems Relating to International Private Label Products and Food Production in Thailand, delves in to the extensive and systematic worker rights violations of Natural Fruit, occurring as of November 2012, that included excessive hours and mandatory overtime with little to no rest periods; physical and psychological mistreatment; provision of false information prior to employment; illegally low wages; withholding of passports; unauthorized salary deductions; exposure to harmful chemicals without adequate protective equipment; under or non-compensation for workplace injuries or deaths and employment of child labor.

In November and December 2012, Finnwatch and Mr. Hall requested for interviews and feedback from Natural Fruit on their initial and concerning research findings both directly and using other indirect means to contact the factories management. In December 2012 the researchers then also sent a serious letter of allegation regarding Natural Fruit to Thai authorities and various international agencies and foreign government but did not receive any responses to their correspondence prior finally to publication of their report in January 2013.

As a result of this research, Natural Fruit recently filed a criminal defamation case against Andy Hall for “broadcasting false information” under the Criminal Code and Computer Crime Act of Thailand. The lawsuit’s charges can result in a two year maximum prison term. An additional case was also filed by Natural Fruit claiming 300 million baht (US$10 million) in damages from Mr Hall. . An initial trial date has been set for 10 April 2013.

MFA has received information that despite some improvements at Natural Fruit following the release of Finnwatch’s report, the conditions for workers at this factory, as in many pineapple processing factories in Thailand, remains poor and of serious concern.

MFA is a regional network of migrants rights organizations, migrants rights advocates, trade unions, faith based organizations and individuals working for the protection and promotion of the rights of migrant workers. As a regional network working on migrants rights MFA calls urgently for the following:

  • The Thai government as well as international concerned stakeholders should take all means at their disposal to ensure Natural Fruit withdraws immediately all lawsuits filed against Mr Hall
  • The Thai government and all customers of Natural Fruit should ensure independent investigations and audits, alongside the researchers and concerned stakeholders, of the existing working conditions of workers in Natural Fruit.

In an environment where an activist exposes the exploitation of migrant workers, it is urgent that their action be supported by actions of due diligence and justice on behalf of all of those concerned.

Migrant Forum in Asia (MFA)
85-C Masikap Extension, Central District
Diliman, Quezon City 1100 Philippines
Telefax: (+63-2) 928-2740 / 433-3508
Email: mfa@mfasia.org
Web: http://www.mfasia.org

All submissions are republished and redistributed in the same way that it was originally published online and sent to us. We may edit submission in a way that does not alter or change the original material.

Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.

[In the news] Amended petition vs. cybercrime law contests cybersex, regular libel -GMA News

Posted on by Leave a comment

Amended petition vs. cybercrime law contests cybersex, regular libel
Mark MERUEÑAS, GMA News
February 4, 2013

gmanewsonlineA group of petitioners against the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 has amended their complaint, asking the Supreme Court to also declare as illegal the regular libel — as opposed to only e-libel — as penalized under the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

The petitioners also included Section 4(c)(1) on cybersex and Section 4(c)(2) on child pornography of the cybercrime law, or Republic Act 10175, as among the portions they are contesting.

In its original petition filed last September, the petitioners questioned the “electronic libel” or e-libel provision of the law, saying it was in violation of the constitutional right to free expression.

Read full article @www.gmanetwork.com

Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.

[From the web] Supreme Court Idol: The cyberlibel edition -RAPPLER.com

Posted on by Leave a comment

Supreme Court Idol: The cyberlibel edition.
By Oscar Franklin Tan, RAPPLER.COM
January 21, 2013

rappler_logoDuring the January 15 oral arguments at the Supreme Court, how many realized that Atty Harry Roque practically stopped discussing the Cybercrime Law and attacked the real world libel law instead? How many noticed that when Justice Marvic Leonen cited the need to protect Chris Lao, he contradicted himself by invoking a doctrine that protects speech? How many observed that Leonen made up for it after by blocking the last piece of Roque’s pet international law argument?

Welcome to Supreme Court Idol: the cyberlibel edition, a recap of the top legal moments (and misses) in last week’s oral arguments regarding the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. (This first installment covers the arguments regarding the actual cyberlibel provision.)

Internet libel has been punishable since the Internet’s creation and was not created by the Cybercrime Law. In fact, existing Internet libel charges are under the Revised Penal Code, enacted in 1930. The Cybercrime Law’s legal issues are far more technical than the Reproductive Health Law’s, which many distill into an individual’s right to choose.

Read full article @www.rappler.com

Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.

[In the news]Supreme Court tackles online libel provision in debates over Cybercrime Law | Sun.Star

Posted on by Leave a comment

Supreme Court tackles online libel provision in debates over Cybercrime Law | Sun.Star.
January 15, 2013

sunstar-network copyMANILA (Updated) — Justices of the Supreme Court (SC) began entertaining arguments against the constitutionality of Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 on Tuesday, as a lawyer called on Congress to finally decriminalize libel.

In discussing the demerits of online libel and cybersex, University of the Philippines professor Harry Roque said these provisions should be struck down for infringing on freedom of expression. He said the provisions are not clear and prone to abuse.

He also pitched to the justices the call of the United Nations Human Rights Committee to lessen the gravity of penalty for those who will be found guilty of libel. Instead, the offender should be accountable for civil damages, he said.

Read full article @www.sunstar.com.ph

Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.

Related articles

[From the web] Esperlita and Pentecostes, Hope and Pentecost? by Fr. Robert Reyes

Posted on by Leave a comment

Esperlita and Pentecostes, Hope and Pentecost? by Fr. Robert Reyes

It was with an an odd combination of feelings that I read about the recent arrest and detention of Esperlita “Perling” Garcia accused of Libel by Gonzaga, Cagayan Mayor Carlito Pentecostes Jr. On the one hand, I felt indignation at another case of political harassment against the actions of a concerned citizen. On the other hand, I also felt a certain lightness and even amusement at the interesting contrast of the names of the accused and her accuser. The first name of the accused is Esperlita (Spanish diminutive of hope or little hope) while the family name of the accuser is Pentecostes (the Spanish of Pentecost or the descent of the Holy Spirit).

While Pentecost is an event teeming with hope and life, this is not what the bearer of the name from Cagayan is radiating. Mayor Carlito Pentecostes Jr. has just accused Esperlita Garcia with libel, claiming that “[Garcia] portrayed him(me) as a very bad person on Facebook. She has been making up stories about the supposed opposition of the people of Gonzaga against mining when in truth, there is no such resistance here now.” (Cf. “ Arrest sparks row over cybercrime arrest” by Gil Cabacungan and Melvin Gascon, Philippine Daily Inquirer, October 23, 2012).

I am not at all surprised at the Mayor’s decision to file a libel case against Esperlita. Isn’t this a typical tool employed by those in power against the virtually voiceless and powerless? What are a good number of landowners doing against agrarian reform beneficiaries? Several landowners in Negros Occidental over the past years have been filing civil and criminal cases against farmer beneficiaries of the land reform program to block their legal claim over land that has been awarded them by government. The charges range from trespassing, arson to theft (stealing sugarcane). What did Governor Mitra do when the late Doc Soc of Palawan accused him of irregularities in the handling of the Malampaya funds? Doc Soc, expectedly was slapped with a libel case which he did not mind and even welcomed just that he will have a chance to repeat his charges against the governor in court. Ten years ago father and son Enriles also accused me of libel which resulted in a nine year long series of court hearings under two judges in Quezon City.

Less than two months ago, sixteen nurses in Taguig were fired because they “liked” the critical comments on the status of Dr. Jocelyn Imbao, a former volunteer doctor, against the administration of the Taguig-Pateros District Hospital. And when some of the nurses tried to secure their certificates of employment the hospital also did not release the said document to them.

Esperlita and the nurses compared to the Mayor of Taguig and the Mayor of Gonzaga in Cagayan Province are small fries swimming in a sea controlled by big and voracious fish. Secretary Lacierda is correct in saying that this is not the case of e-Martial Law since the Cyber-Crime Law is under a 120 day TRO. Lacierda explains that Esperlita’s case is under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code which carries lighter penalties compared to the pending Cyber Crime Law which imposes the higher penalty of “prison mayor” or mandatory imprisonment. In effect Lacierda offers Esperlita some consolation that her penalty is negligible compared to the pending Cyber Crime law. Should we then feel grateful to you Secretary Lacierda?

Mayor Pentecostes added that he will not withdraw his case against Esperlita in order to “teach her a lesson for her arrogance.” Similarly, the summary dismissal of the nurses in Taguig logically flows from the same authoritative and punitive stance of wanting to teach the nurses a lesson for their disobedience. The law is usually used by those in power who hire lawyers armed with an awesome cache of legal artillery. What do small citizens like Esperlita and the Taguig Nurses have? Neither lawyers nor legal and political connection, except for the truth that they directly experience and endure in their very flesh and blood.

There is hope because of Esperlita and the Taguig nurses. There is hope because of citizens, netizens in particular who in spite of legal and political insignificance put their voices together for the truth.

I wonder whether arrogance was one of the gifts of the spirit during the first Pentecost? Far be it, for in that hidden room in the attic, there were no lawyers and politicians, only little, humble people whose simplicity and poverty pleased God to choose them to be bearers of truth and bearers of hope as well…

Fr. Roberto P. Reyes
October 23, 2012
Juan de Plasencia Franciscan Novitiate
Liliw, Laguna

Source: www.facebook.com/notes/faith-based-congress/esperlita-and-pentecostes-hope-and-pentecost-by-fr-robert-reyes/3917671103343

Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.

[Resources] UN HRC- Participation in the reporting process, Guidelines For NGOs -CCPR

Posted on by Leave a comment

UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE- Participation in the reporting process
Guidelines For Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs)

“These guidelines make readily available to all NGOs the expertise which the Centre
for Civil and Political Rights has accrued in the area of the reporting process. The
combination of detailed practical and substantive information should make these
Guidelines extremely useful in facilitating and honing the work of NGOs in relation to
the Human Rights Committee.”

Zonke Majodina
Member of the Human Rights Committee
NGO Focal Point

Read complete guidelines @ ccprcentre.org

[Statement] Republic Act No. 10175: legislating “one (1) degree higher” for impunity -PAHRA

Posted on by Leave a comment

Republic Act No. 10175: legislating “one (1) degree higher” for impunity

Our human right to the freedom of information
has not yet been made justiciable,
already a law is readied to curtail
our human right to the freedom of expression.

Republic Act No. 10175 –

AN ACT DEFINING CYBERCRIME, PROVIDING FOR THE PREVENTION, INVESTIGATION, SUPPRESSION AND THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES –

was drafted, discussed, signed into law with all the good intentions to decisively stop the “perpetuation of licentiousness” ( Petition for Certioriari by members of the Ateneo Human Rights Center or AHRC Petition) and other harmful acts perpetrated within the cyber communities and affecting as well millions of Filipino users of the internet. R.A. No. 10175 was to take into effect last October 3, 2012.

The Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA) “like” / agree with the AHRC Petition arguing that singularly and / or collectively the following provisions in R.A. 10175, as they transgress the …Bill of Rights in Article III of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, are

“unconstitutional”:

Chapter II: Punishable Acts

Sec. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. – The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable under this Act: xxxxxxx

(4) Libel. – The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.

SEC. 5. Other Offenses. – The following acts shall also constitute an offense:

(a) Aiding or abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime. – Any person who wilfully aids or abets in the commission of any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be 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.

SEC. 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be.

SEC. 7. Liability under Other Laws. — A prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws.

SEC. 19. Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data. — When a computer data is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer data

The above provisions are also non-compliant with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which was ratified by President Corazon Aquino and signed recently by President Benigno S. Aquino III, ironically, days before the 40th anniversary of the imposition of Martial Law which violently suppressed, among other human rights, the freedoms of information and of expression.

Furthermore, in relation to the issue of libel, the U.N. Human Rights Committee states in General Comment No. 34 (2011): “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.”

Even as early as January 24 Senate Session when Senator Vicente Sotto inserted the libel clause, provisions have been made to lodge within the said law that if implemented would be like viruses for impunity. Unwittingly or otherwise, congress has legislated

“one (1) degree higher” for impunity.

One person too many, after exercising one’s freedom of expression, have been a victim of vilification and later became a subject of extra-judicial killing or enforced disappearance or torture. Human rights defenders in exposing also through cyber bulletin boards the anomalies and abuses done by government and / or security forces officials are often harassed and criminalize, as in the case of Cocoy Tulawie. The objectionable provisions, despite protestation to the contrary, can be used to legitimize violations.

If not amended of the objectionable provisions, those directly responsible for the passage of R.A. 10175 will be held also accountable for the human rights violations and criminal acts done in its name.

PAHRA unites with all those petitioners who call on the responsibles of the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government, as well as the Supreme Court, to:

1. Facilitate the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order to desist in implementing R.A. No. 10175;

2. Schedule a Department of Justice public hearing and input its results in the Oral Arguments before the Supreme Court;

3. Amend or declare null and void Sections 4 (4), 5, 6, 7 and 19 of R.A. No. 10175.
October 8, 2012

All submissions are republished and redistributed in the same way that it was originally published online and sent to us. We may edit submission in a way that does not alter or change the original material.

Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.

[From the web] ‘Cybercrime’ law threatens free speech and must be reviewed | Amnesty International

Posted on by One comment

Philippines: ‘Cybercrime’ law threatens free speech and must be reviewed | Amnesty International.

October 4, 2012

A new ‘cybercrime’ law in the Philippines poses serious risks to freedom of expression and must be reviewed, Amnesty International said.

Under the new law, known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 101750), a person could be sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for posting online comments judged to be libellous.

“The ‘cybercrime’ law rolls back protections for free speech in the Philippines. Under this law, a peaceful posting on the Internet could result in a prison sentence,” said Isabelle Arradon, deputy Asia director at Amnesty International.

The law, which came into effect on Wednesday, broadly extends criminal libel (defined in the Philippines as the public and malicious imputation of a discreditable act that tends to discredit or dishonour another person and which currently exists under the Revised Penal Code) to apply to acts “committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future”.

It also increases the criminal penalties for libel in computer-related cases.

Read full article @ www.amnesty.org

Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.

[Press Release] New ‘Cybercrime’ Law Will Harm Free Speech -Human Rights Watch

Posted on by Leave a comment

Philippines: New ‘Cybercrime’ Law Will Harm Free Speech
Supreme Court to Rule on Act That Worsens Criminal Defamation

(New York, September 28, 2012) – A new Philippine “cybercrime” law drastically increases punishments for criminal libel and gives authorities excessive and unchecked powers to shut down websites and monitor online information, Human Rights Watch said today. President Benigno Aquino III signed the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 into law on September 12, 2012.

The law’s criminal penalties for online libel and other restrictions are a serious threat to free expression in the Philippines, Human Rights Watch said. Several legal cases have been filed in the Philippines Supreme Court, including for the law to be declared unconstitutional because it violates guarantees to free expression contained in the Philippines constitution and human rights treaties ratified by the Philippines.

“The cybercrime law needs to be repealed or replaced,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “It violates Filipinos’ rights to free expression and it is wholly incompatible with the Philippine government’s obligations under international law.”

The new law defines several new acts of “cybercrime.” Among the acts prohibited are “cybersex,” online child pornography, illegal access to computer systems or hacking, online identity theft, and spamming.

A section on libel specifies that criminal libel, already detailed in article 355 of the Philippines Revised Penal Code, will now apply to acts “committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.” The new law drastically increases the penalty for computer-related libel, with the minimum punishment raised twelve-fold, from six months to six years. The maximum punishment is doubled from six to twelve years in prison.

“Anybody using popular social networks or who publishes online is now at risk of a long prison term should a reader – including government officials – bring a libel charge,” Adams said. “Allegedly libelous speech, online or offline, should be handled as a private civil matter, not a crime.”

Human Rights Watch called on the Philippines government to repeal its existing criminal libel law. The Aquino administration has shown little inclination to support legislation pending in the Philippine Congress to decriminalize libel.

Aside from the section on libel, the new law has a provision that grants new powers to the Department of Justice, which on its own and without a warrant, can order the shutdown of any website it finds violating the law. It also authorizes police to collect computer data in real time without a court order or warrant.

The use of criminal defamation laws also has a chilling effect on the speech of others, particularly those involved with similar issues, Human Rights Watch said.

When citizens face prison time for complaining about official performance, corruption, or abusive business practices, other people take notice and are less likely to draw attention to such problems themselves, undermining effective governance and civil society.

Several journalists in the Philippines have been imprisoned for libel in recent years, leaving a blot on the country’s record on press freedom. In the case of Davao City radio journalist Alexander Adonis, who was convicted in 2007 of libel and spent two years in prison, the United Nations Human Rights Committee determined that the Philippine government violated article 19 on the right to freedom of expression and opinion of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The committee called on the Philippine government to decriminalize libel.

“So long as it stands, the new cybercrime law will have a chilling effect over the entire Philippine online community,” Adams said.

For more Human Rights Watch reporting on the Philippines, please visit:
http://www.hrw.org/asia/-philippines

To view the 2010 Human Rights Watch report “Turning Critics into Criminals,” please visit:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2010/05/04/turning-critics-criminals

All submissions are republished and redistributed in the same way that it was originally published online and sent to us. We may edit submission in a way that does not alter or change the original material.

Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.

[From the web] Cybercrime law: Demonizing technology

Posted on by One comment

Cybercrime law: Demonizing technology.

BY SEN. TEOFISTO ‘TG’ GUINGONA III
September 26, 2012

I own a Facebook page where people are welcome to make comments, positive or negative. I also own a public Twitter account where my views are published for everyone to see.

If any of my own thoughts or the thoughts expressed by people on these accounts that I own happens to offend someone, I can now be charged for libel under the newly enacted Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Suddenly, I can be punished for expressing critical thought online or allowing my Facebook friends to do the same on my own page.

With this law, even Mark Zuckerberg, the owner of Facebook, can be charged with cyber-libel!

A Cybercrime Prevention Act is necessary, but must not be oppressive.

Republic Act 10175 is oppressive and dangerous. It demonizes the computer user and extends its tentacles to a computer user’s freedom of expression and speech. In an age when decriminalization of libel is the trend, this law makes a fatal step back, toward the vault of archaic policies that cannot be made to apply to the modern man operating in a modern world.

Let me just point out the fact that we need a Cybercrime Prevention Act. Except for certain problematic provisions, this law is necessary. That’s why it is unfortunate that the overly vague and oppressive provision on libel was inserted into the law at the last minute.

Read full article @ www.rappler.com

Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.

[In the news] Unlikely hero: Alex Adonis and the fight to decriminalize libel -InterAksyon.com

Posted on by Leave a comment

Unlikely hero: Alex Adonis and the fight to decriminalize libel
by Dino Testa, InterAksyon.com
February 28, 2012

MANILA, Philippines — For years, media organizations in the country have been campaigning for the decriminalization of libel, saying the existing law, which dates back to the American colonial period and was used to curtail dissent, continues to be used with impunity by those in power more to muzzle press freedom than to seek redress against journalistic abuse.

Recently, what could be their biggest breakthrough came when the United Nations Human Rights Committee deemed the country’s criminal libel law “incompatible” with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights, which protects the right to free expression and opinion.

The Philippines has ratified the Covenant. Thus, while the UNHRC resolution may not be legally binding, it is expected to put pressure on the government to push for the decriminalization of libel.

For this development, Filipino journalists owe a debt to one colleague who, ironically, was forced to give up more than two years of his life.

Read full article @ www.interaksyon.com

[In the news] UN rights body seeks compensation for jailed Pinoy journalist -ABS-CBNnews.com

Posted on by Leave a comment

UN rights body seeks compensation for jailed Pinoy journalist
ABS-CBNnews.com
February 3, 2012

MANILA, Philippines – The United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) wants the Philippine government to compensate a Davao City-based journalist who has been imprisoned for criminal defamation.

The UNHRC believes that the imprisonment of Alexander Adonis violated his right to free expression, according to an international media rights group.

The case stemmed from a 2001 radio broadcast in which Adonis reported on an alleged affair between then House Speaker Prospero Nograles and a married woman, the International Press Institute (IPI) said on Friday.

The UNHRC said the nearly 5-year prison sentence imposed on Adonis was “incompatible” with Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The committee reported that Nograles filed a libel complaint against Adonis in response to the story.

The IPI said in 2007, a Davao City court sentenced Adonis to a prison term of 5 months to 4-and-a-half years.

The court also ordered him to pay P100,000 to the congressman for “moral damages” and imposed an additional P100,000 fine to “serve as an example for notorious display of irresponsible reporting,” the IPI added.

In his filing with the UNHRC, Adonis asserted that the libel provisions (Sections 353 and 354) of the Philippines Revised Criminal Code unreasonably infringed upon the right to free speech.

“The current law explicitly presumes malice in all defamatory statements and in nearly all cases rejects defences of truth or public interest,” the IPI said.

Read full article @ www.abs-cbnnews.com

[In the news] Senator Jinggoy: No prison term for libel – InterAksyon.com

Posted on by Leave a comment

Senator Jinggoy: No prison term for libel
by Karl John C. Reyes, InterAksyon.com
February 2, 2012

Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada seeks the abolition of the penalty of imprisonment in libel cases, saying that such a stiff penalty curtails freedom of expression and threatens journalists and other media personnel who criticize or expose erroneous acts.

In Senate Bill 83, one of his priority measures, Estrada said that while a newsman may share his views publicly on controversial issues and individuals, he remains unprotected from the risk of imprisonment if convicted of libel.

Under the Revised Penal Code, one count of libel is punishable with imprisonment of up to six years and one day, and a fine of up to P6,000.

“This loophole is in direct opposition to the freedom of speech and should warrant necessary revisions,” the lawmaker states in the bill’s explanatory note.

“It is an irony that we call our country a land of democracy and yet we have the highest ratings of media killings and intimidation in Asia. Why should a reporter be penalized when he only speaks of the truth or when he voices out his just opinion to the masses who need to know what is going on?” Sen. Estrada said.

Read full article @ www.interaksyon.com

[From the web] A triumph for free expression and press freedom – CMFR

Posted on by Leave a comment

A triumph for free expression and press freedom
BY CMFR
January 31, 2012

STATEMENT OF THE FREEDOM FUND FOR FILIPINO JOURNALISTS (FFFJ) ON THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE’S VIEW THAT THE PHILIPPINE LIBEL LAW IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS (ICCPR)

 THE Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists (FFFJ) hails as a triumph for free expression and press freedom the declaration by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), which was adopted during the 103rd session of the United Nations, that the provisions of the Philippines’ Revised Penal Code (RPC) penalizing libel as a criminal offense is “incompatible with Article 19, paragraph three of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)” to which the Philippines is a signatory.

Recalling its General Comment No. 34 that “state parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation” the UNHRC also recommended the decriminalization of libel in the Philippines, as the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) has been urging for nearly two decades. It also recommended the review of the libel law, and urged the Philippine government to compensate Davao City broadcaster Alexander “Alex” Adonis for time served in prison.

Under the provisions of the RPC, libel is punishable with imprisonment, although some of those convicted of the offense have also been subjected to exorbitant fines running into millions of pesos. The possibility of being arrested and imprisoned even before conviction for libel has been used to silence critical journalists. Former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s husband Jose Miguel Arroyo, for example, filed 11 libel suits against 46 journalists starting in 2006 in an attempt to stop press reporting on and criticism of his wife.

The UNHRC issued the declaration in response to a 2008 complaint filed by Adonis protesting his conviction and subsequent imprisonment for supposedly libeling then House Speaker Prospero Nograles when he reported over his radio program in 2006 that Nograles had run out of a hotel room without his clothes on when the husband of the woman he had supposedly spent the night with showed up. Adonis was convicted and sentenced to a prison term of five months to four years, but questioned the decision after he had served two years. Lawyer Harry Roque filed the complaint, with the CMFR and the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) as Adonis’ co-signatories.

It is now up to the Philippine government to take the steps necessary to decriminalize libel and prevent similar occurrences, to cause the immediate dismissal of all pending cases of criminal libel, as well as to compensate Adonis and every other journalist who has been imprisoned under the provisions of the Philippine libel law. To hurry the process along, the FFFJ calls on all journalists’ and media advocacy groups as well as civil society organizations to campaign for the immediate adoption of the UNCHR recommendations, including the dropping of all pending criminal libel charges against journalists.

Founded in 2003 to stop the killing of journalists and to support journalists under threat, the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists (FFFJ) is a coalition of journalist and media advocacy groups Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), Center for Community Journalism and Development (CCJD), Kapisanan ng Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP), Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), and Philippine Press Institute (PPI). CMFR is the FFFJ Secretariat.

Read full article @ www.cmfr-phil.org

[In the news] UNHRC: Philippine criminal libel law violates freedom of expression – InterAksyon.com

Posted on by One comment

UNHRC: Philippine criminal libel law violates freedom of expression
by InterAksyon.com
January 29, 2012

 MANILA, Philippines – In a landmark decision just recently released, the United Nation Human Rights Commission says Philippine laws criminalizing libel is “incompatible with Article 19, paragraph three of the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights (ICCPR)”, or freedom of expression.

This UNHRC’s view, adopted on October 26, 2011, was expressed in line with a complaint filed by Davao based broadcaster Alex Adonis. Adonis was jailed for more than two years pursuant to a conviction for libel in a complaint filed by former Speaker Prospero Nograles. In a radio broadcast in 2001, Adonis read and dramatized a newspaper report that then Congressman Nograles was seen running naked in a hotel when caught in bed by the husband of the woman with whom he was said to have spent the night with.

In a decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Davao, Adonis was sentenced to imprisonment from 5 months and one day to four years, six days and one day imprisonment. In the said decision, the local court concluded: “the evidence was sufficient to prove the authors guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for a malicious, arbitrary, abusive, irresponsible act of maligning the honor, reputation and good name of Congressman Nograles”.

After serving two years in prison, Adonis questioned the compatibility of criminal libel with freedom of expression under Article 19 of the ICCPR. Adonis, through his lawyer, Harry Roque of the UP College of Law and the Center for International Law (CenterLaw), argued that “the sanction of imprisonment for libel fails to meet the standard of necessity and reasonableness. Imprisonment is unnecessary since there are other effective means available for protection for the rights of others.”

Read full article @ www.interaksyon.com