"x x x.
I seek clarification of the report that there exists “a Supreme Court ruling which declared that statements made online did not constitute publication, one of the elements of libel” (“DOJ corrects boo-boos in cyber-Perling’s case,” Inquirer, 10/26/2012).
The article appears to refer to the 2010 ruling in Bonifacio v. Regional Trial Court of Makati Branch 149, which restricted cyberlibel by limiting the filing of suits only in the place where the complainant resides. This was done because the Internet may be accessed from anywhere in the country and the Supreme Court wanted to prevent harassment in the form of suits filed in far-flung municipalities where complainants claim libelous material was first accessed.
Then Justice and now Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales wrote: “If the circumstances as to where the libel was printed and first published are used by the offended party as basis for the venue in the criminal action, the information must allege with particularity where the defamatory article was printed and first published, as evidenced or supported by, for instance, the address of their editorial or business offices in the case of newspapers, magazines or serial publications. This pre-condition becomes necessary in order to forestall any inclination to harass. The same measure cannot be reasonably expected when it pertains to defamatory material appearing on a website on the Internet as there would be no way of determining the situs of its printing and first publication.”
The above ruling, which predates the cybercrime law, clearly discusses a procedural rule. It does not state that cyberlibel does not exist.
In the future, when a Court ruling is central to a report, it may aid readers if the ruling’s name is stated. It would be especially helpful if the article is anchored on a particularly aggressive interpretation of a ruling.
—OSCAR FRANKLIN TAN, oscarfranklin.tan@yahoo.com.ph
x x x."
No comments:
Post a Comment