War, portents of war, and breakthroughs in war, are always elements of news — ask any news editor. Uncharacteristically, Malacañang not only released information but announced the Bangsamoro “framework agreement” in a highly publicized press con, on a slow news day, a full week ahead of its signing. They could not have chosen a better element of news — war ranks way up there in any editor’s book. And so, Malacañang knows, it thinks, this would outrank any news story or discussion on the Cybercrime Prevention Act.
When they were “out-of-power”, in 2008, the Liberal Party questioned the constitutionality of the initial Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the MILF, which provided for a future comprehensive peace pact, hammered out by Gloria’s government. They found enough adherents in the Supreme Court: By a narrow vote of 8 to 7, the Supreme Court struck down the peace agreement as “unconstitutional” – betraying everybody’s ignorance that negotiated political settlements are always outside the legal frameworks of the State-parties . Now that they are inpower, they forged a “framework agreement” honoring a “Basic Law” for the Bangsamoro. Good. Finally. I’m glad that potentially there will now be a negotiated political settlement of the armed conflict in Mindanao – the Liberal Party delayed it by four years on the argument that the proposed “Bangsamoro Juridical Entity” mentioned in the 2008 MOA required Charter Change. They, and everyone else of course, were not willing to grant that to Gloria (Cha-cha under Gloria – no way).
Don’t look at me, I’ve been consistently in favor of negotiated political settlements over war, regardless of who were in power (look at the history of this blog and previous blog posts). But look at them. It took a maelstrom of a social media frenzy over the Cybercrime Law, for an advanced announcement of a peace agreement to be made, and to go on headlong with this.
Media law final exams today. 1pm exam, finished, examinees have left the room and spread the word, so the 1pm questions are now public. Here’s one of the bonus questions:
For 5 points! (Drumroll…)
66-71) Blogger JLo complained during a press con on the Cybercrime Law that her daughter would not be able to “rant” anymore in Facebook and Twitter whenever she is served “undercooked” or “overcooked” hamburger in Jollibee or McDonald’s because “it would be punishable as libel” under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. What would you advise JLo, based on your background in media law? Explain.
xxx xxx xxx
i’ll be incommunicado until I’ve submitted the grades. Well, actually, I could still be reached but I won’t reply unless… close po ba tayo? ka-text ko po ba kayo, hindi po, salamat.
For that interregnum, will just be blogposting the amusing answers to the bonus questions starting tomorrow; maybe one a day.
xxx xxx xxx
For this particular question, since there is no particular jurisprudence with exactly the same facts, there are no right and wrong answers; but the examiner is looking for the following: 1)What are the subjects of fair comment? [We took up at least nine (many!) subjects of fair comment, with one of them being so broad as to cover any matter of public interest; and 2)what the criteria for fair comment? Those comments are not libelous. Just state the relevant category and you’ll get the full points.] 3) If the examinee includes the following discussion, he/she will get wild applause from me: When is a so-called “rant”, “joke” etc. (a “like” in FB or a “he-he-he” after a re-tweet) covered by the fair-comment-rule and therefore not libelous? (broad category too; you’ll be happy if you know your media law) Abanganthe sagot! (Watch out for the answers!)
Libel is always content-based, it is not medium-based.
(Palakpakan! applause! big smile! confetti! balloons!)