Philippines Echo U.S. "Free Speech" Sentiments: Win Turnover Battle over Internet Law

Once upon a time, a country proposed a cyber “safety” law, which on the very surface, seemed to be perfectly well-intentioned.  However, after the country’s citizens astutely realized that this cyber law would do more actual harm than potential good, they rallied and petitioned against this bill by garnering media attention and utilizing social media tools to spread the word on the World Wide Web.  These efforts achieved great success and the law was quickly repealed, proving victory for the people and an astounding defeat to a control-seeking government.

Does this story sound familiar?

It should.  But if you’re thinking that I’m referring to the instance earlier this year when the entire internet shut down in protest to the SOPA and PIPA bills in the U.S., then you’re wrong.  The event that I’m eluding to above happened just recently, more urgently, and in a tiny country that’s not often mentioned in mainstream media. Today, the Philippines Supreme Court unanimously issued a 120-day temporary restraining order (TRO) on the entire Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 or Republic Act 10175.

Last month, many speculators were convinced that dark times were ahead for internet users of the Philippines after its government passed the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 – a cyber “safety” law that reeks of the same underhanded threats of censorship that the SOPA and PIPA bills proposed to enforce in the U.S. not too long ago.  Similar to the intended purposes of the SOPA and PIPA acts, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 was brought forward as an attempt to deem the usual online abuses of hacking, cracking, identity theft, and spamming as illegal acts while its main goal was to eliminate major problems such as cybersex, child pornography, file-sharing (which was SOPA's main target), and the prevention of cyber bullying. But what makes this cyber prevention act a law "that makes SOPA look reasonable" is its problematic provisions on online libel.  Not only does this addition to the cyber law criminalize anonymous online criticism, but Section 19 of the Act would allow the country's Department of Justice to have complete control over blocking users to access whatever "computer data" or shut down whichever website that they deem criminal or illegal. The very idea of online libel is so vague and loosely defined that some Filipinos feared that the government could put you in jail for anything -- from "liking" a post on Facebook to re-tweeting to freely speaking your mind on the basis of criminalizing anonymous online criticism under this law.  According to The Philippine Star, when asked about possible libel suits because of posts on Twitter or Facebook, deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte answered: "We will leave it up to the lawyers to determine.” 

Much in the way that U.S. citizens reacted and retaliated quickly to the SOPA and PIPA bills, the Philippine citizens were driven by imperative necessity due to the act having been passed a month ago and actually reinforced last week.  The act’s questionable provisions and its implied infringements on the freedom of speech and expression on the internet was brought to the attention of online users everywhere in the Philippines – from activists groups, forum posters, bloggers, social media users, and garnering major attention from mainstream media outlets.

Some organizations like the The Akbayan Citizen’s Action Party released a press statement about the crime prevention law in which they “laud[ed] the intent of President Aquino III" and still believed that the law was founded on good intent, they still viewed the libel provision as “ill-conceived and will only serve to limit the public’s use of the internet as a venue for airing their opinions, views, and even dissent."  Other outspoken groups such as The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines outright criticized the new law's criminal libel provision "and the insidious way it was inserted during the bicameral deliberation — without benefit of public consultation — are direct strikes at the rights to free expression and press freedom."  Besides media organizations and activist groups banding together collectively on their stances in strong opposition of the cyber safety law, individual online users were openly sharing their views with each other through multiple social networking platforms and website forums in order to generate more awareness about it.  The Act stirred up conversational debate not only among its own Filipino citizens that it would be solely affecting, it also caught the attention of many citizens all over the world.  From everyday citizens, to celebrities, to political public figures themselves, it seemed that everyone was participating in this controversial debate over the freedom of online speech.

With everyone’s reactions feeding off of each other, it took absolutely no time for these passionate reactions to manifest itself into concrete action.  Many of the activist groups such as the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility and the Philippine Press Institute declared the Cybercrime Prevention Act as unconstitutional and set up a petition for the country’s Supreme Court to rule on “a law that establishes a regime of ‘cyber authoritarianism’ and undermines all the fundamental guarantees of freedoms and liberties that many have given their lives and many still give their lives work to vindicate, restore and defend. “  Other organizations such as The Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance had taken further initiatives through active online participation that is reminiscent of the SOPA-style blackout protest, with the Filipino variation being referenced to as “Black Wednesday.”   Online users also encouraged each other to raise awareness and bring about action through the social media practices of hash-tagging slogans such as #NoToCybercrimeLaw or #ReviseCyberCrimeLaw and changing Facebook profile pictures to express anti-Cyber Martial Law sentiments.  Even more severe measures have been put into action in opposition of the Cybercrime Prevention Act in which hackers that claimed to be part of a group called Anonymous Philippines hacked into government websites to demonstrate a resilient stance against the cyber law.