notes on decriminalizing libel if thru the SC route
(for those who are choosing the Supreme Court route to decriminalize libel, that is, if you must choose this route for the decriminalization campaign)
Even the Supreme Court through then Chief Justice Puno thinks the penalty provision of the libel law is too harsh, hence the Supreme Court circular advising judges not to impose jail time as punishment but to mete out fines instead. So far, this is being followed by judges. This circular however is not law, it is advisory in character.
In other words, as everyone knows, the Supreme Court cannot legislate. Policy questions (whether or not libel should be decriminalized) should be addressed by the legislature. If the Supreme Court thinks the subject matter is a policy issue, it would shirk from ruling.
Some suggestions: Those who want to decriminalize libel through the Supreme Court route might want to take note of the following: The Supreme Court has to be convinced that the opinion/ report of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) itself (October 2011) – of the Philippine libel law prison provision being too severe and in contravention of Section 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights — has the status of law, and not merely persuasive in character. If this could be shown, then those who chose the Supreme Court route might succeed in transforming libel decriminalization from a policy issue to a legal issue. Section 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a restatement of the free-speech-clause. The ICPR has the status of law, i.e., it is a binding international convention. Does the UNCHR opinion itself have the status of law? You’ll need the Supreme Court to: either agree with the UNHRC opinion, and to adopt it, (that our Philippine libel law is in contravention of Section 19 of the ICPR), or to consider the UNHRC report itself as law.
Tedious? Yes.
Also, since the online libel provision of the Cybercrime Prevention Act (Chapter II, Section 4, (c) (4) Libel,) is somehow a restatement of Art. 355 of the Revised Penal Code except for the last clause, the Supreme Court will say: “Well, you are in effect questioning the constitutionality of Art. 355 itself, upon which the online libel provision is based, the latter being merely a restatement… aren’t you?” And when you answer yes, the Supreme Court will say, then why did you not plead that? You want us to in effect strike down Art. 355 of the Revised Penal Code itself as unconstitutional, based on the ICCPR – replead this, attach a certified copy, then come back here.
Technical? Yes. Acrobatic-technical.
There are several provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act that are, “on their faces” (“on its face”), unconstitutional. (to be continued poito)
