My take on the raging cybercrime debate

This should be my belated contribution to the BLOG ACTION DAY celebrated last October 15, 2012. The raging debates in the Philippines over the Cybercrime Act passed by Congress and immediately signed into law by President Benigno S. Aquino III, which has been surreptitiously inserted with cyber libel, accorded with higher penalties than what is provided by the Spanish-inspired Penal Code. Of course we raise a howl not because we want to libel or malign anyone, but because we see a clear and imminent danger to civil liberties based on the vague and enormous powers granted by that law to law enforcement and prosecutorial arms of Government. Understandably, government officials such as Senator Vicente "Tito" Sotto III who claims to be the first national public official victimized by cyber bullying over his controversial stand on reproductive health and plagiarized speeches, and other onion-skinned high ranking officials of Government saw this as an opportunity to take sweet revenge. But to the shock of their lives, they have grossly underestimated the power of the netizens who revolted in various means - even hacking government websites, and showering these morons with heavy cyber artillery bombardment. The issue now rests with the Supreme Court of the land, which luckily issued a restraining order to halt the implementation of the law for a good four (4) months, maybe enough time for the Court to come up with a sound decision on the fate of the controversial law. I would definitely share the views in favor of civil liberties. But would also call for some corrective measures Congress can do to come up with a more acceptable version (assuming the Supreme Court strikes down the current version, which, looking at its face value, is very likely). My concern would have to do with the almost unlimited freedom exercised by bloggers and social media writers, including at Facebook. Being a victim myself of maligning posts on Facebook by someone hiding in a pseudonym or assumed name, I felt helpless to counter. But I was even more shock to see how a beloved friend of mine, a lady lawyer, become a victim. A woman claiming to have been cheated and swindled by my friend simply posted so many damaging and maligning statements with impunity. While the allegations are fantastic, incredible and untrue, my friend's reputation must have been affected, if not tarnished by her posts. This case made me think that if this goes unabated, then no one is safe from the internet. This should be the focus of the anti-cybercrime law - how to protect innocent people from being victims of libel or slander. How private individuals should be shielded from unchecked and undisputed maligning over the internet. And if that private individual happens to be a public official (isn't that ironic?), then libel should be determined whether the comments or criticisms are made against the person or his acts. If for the latter, then he has no right to use the law as a shield. Relief and mechanisms to stop or ban sites containing malicious posts should be put in place without sacrificing basic rights to freedom of expression.