Philippine Anti-Cyberbullying/Cybercrime

Cyber-bullying via social media seen as crime

Picking on someone on Facebook may soon become a crime.
A bill has been filed at the House of Representatives defining and penalizing cyber-bullying, or
the act of posting rude, offensive or insulting messages against the victim on the Internet.
By penalizing acts of cyber-bullying, people are encouraged to become responsible netizens and
make them accountable for their cyber-actions, the author, Camarines Sur Rep. Rolando Andaya
Jr., said in an explanatory note. Cyber-bullying, he said, would refer to acts of cruelty committed
using the Internet or any form of electronic media or technology that has the effect of stripping
ones dignity or causing reasonable fear or physical or emotional harm.
Offensive acts include the following:
a) Repeatedly sending offensive, rude and insulting message;
b) Distributing derogatory information about the victim;
c) Posting or sending offensive photos of the victim, whether these are digitally altered or not,
or were taken with or without consent, with the intention to humiliate and embarrass the
victim;
d) Breaking into an email, social networking or any electronic account and using the victims
virtual identity to send, upload or distribute embarrassing materials to or about others;
e) Sharing the victims personal information or any embarrassing information, or tricking the
victim into revealing personal or embarrassing information and sharing it to others; and
f) Repeatedly sending messages that include threats of harm or engaging in online activities
that cause fear on the victims safety.
Cyber-bullying is one such problem that the advancement in technology and social media has
generated. It can potentially affect not only school-aged children, but also any individual who has
access to a mobile phone or the internet, Andaya said.
Under House Bill 5718, or the proposed Anti Cyber-Bullying Act of 2015, cyber-bullies shall
face a penalty of fines ranging from P50,000 to P100,000, or imprisonment between six months
and six years, or both, at the discretion of the court.
The onset of the Internet has shattered world barriers empowering users with immense information
and allowed them to be socially connected to virtually anybody around the globe in the comfort of
their own homes, Andaya said.
Because of the anonymity that the Internet gives, social and moral norms are easily switched off
and users are emboldened to just say or post anything online without accountability, he added.
As a result, Internet bashing has become a culture among Internet users and even spawned
problems that involve hostility and aggression, Andaya said.
The measure provides that the Commission on Information and Communications Technology
(CICT), Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Department of Interior and Local Government
(DILG) shall jointly formulate the necessary rules and regulations within 90 days of passage.
Bullying on social media: The Philippines current legal platform
The pen is mightier than the sword or so the adage goes.
When this was once said, it was to highlight the power of thought and idea over brute force and
violence as a way to effect change.
In the Philippines, many attribute President Dutertes electoral victory to a strong social media
presence and awareness from supporters and detractors alike. Similarly, in the United States,
President Trumps astounding victory may not have been predictable on the basis on old measures
of popularity, but perhaps to a more subtle, even subliminal influence, perhaps attributable to social
media as well.
Unfortunately, when people log into their social media accounts, some tend to shed normal
sensibilities or even basic civility. This is the same phenomenon that perhaps gives rise to the
anomaly of Philippine vehicular traffic, where the polite and non-confrontational is shed for
disrespectful and sometimes barbaric behavior leading to the Gordian knot that is Philippine
traffic.
Part of this is the cloak of perceived anonymity that social media brings. We therefore sometimes
see posts or commentaries meant to embarrass competence and intelligence, gender, or just plain
rumor-mongering.
However, even when done behind the cloak of a social media platform may have legal implications
under our present laws.
THE ANTI-BULLYING ACT OF 2013 (RA 10627)
This law finds applicability in school-related bullying incidents which cover those uttered on social
media platforms. Bullying under this law refers to any severe, or repeated use by one or more
students of a written, verbal or electronic expression, or a physical act or gesture, or any
combination thereof, directed at another student that has the effect of actually causing or placing
the latter in reasonable fear of physical or emotional harm or damage to his property; creating a
hostile environment at school; infringing on the rights of another student at school; or materially
or substantially disrupting the education process. (Sec. 2, RA 10627) When done through the use
of the Internet, the law categorizes the same as cyber-bullying. (Sec. 2-D, RA 10627) This covers
social bullying aiming to belittle another individual or group or gender-based bullying which
humiliates another on the basis of perceived or actual sexual orientation and gender identity. (Sec.
3, B-1, RA 10627, Implementing Rules). However, this law only addresses student-student
bullying. Hence, a teacher who belittles a student in Facebook or any other social media account,
on account of grades or class performance, social standing or gender may not be held liable under
this law.
THE REVISED PENAL CODE AND THE CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT
One who publicly or maliciously imputes to another a crime, vice, defect, real or imaginary, or
any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or
contempt of a natural or juridical person, or blacken the memory of one who is dead may be liable
for libel under the Revised Penal Code. (Art. 353, RPC) These acts, when done in social media,
will be punished more severely in addition to the civil action for damages which may be brought
by the offended party. (Sec. 4 (c-4), RA 10175)
Cyberlibel holds liable only the original author of the post (Sec. 5 (3), Implementing Rules of RA
10175) hence, if you are one of those who are fond of liking or reacting to a post of this character,
cyberlibel is not the crime for you.
Slander may also be applicable to one who, in heat of anger, utters statements that are highly
defamatory in character. (Art. 358, RPC)
Intriguing Against Honor may also find applicability when the principal purpose is to blemish the
honor or reputation of a person. (Art. 364, RPC) However, the requirement is that the post be
directed to a specific person. Hence, a blind item is not as actionable as a named-post in social
media.
THE CIVIL CODE ON DAMAGES
One who is aggrieved by a defamatory post in social media may nonetheless find refuge in the
provisions of the Civil Code on Damages. (Art. 2176, Civil Code) One who posts in social media,
causing damage to the reputation of another may be liable to the subject for damages and this can
be a valid cause of action under the law. Such post must tend to pry to the privacy and peace of
mind of another, meddle or disturb the private life or family relations of another, intrigue to cause
another to be alienated from his friends or vex or humiliate another on account of his religious
beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect or other personal condition. (Art. 26,
Civil Code)
The recent popular posts in Facebook featuring over-weight people who are victims of body-
shaming may rely on the Civil Code for an action for damages.
THE LABOR CODE ON JUST CAUSES FOR TERMINATION
An employee who spreads rumors or intrigues against a coworker or his superior or vice versa, or
who does any act similar to cyberlibel, slander, intriguing against honor or even prying into the
privacy of another may be a just cause for his termination if embodied in the company policy in
addition to all other causes of action available to him under the laws mentioned. (Sec. 5.2 (g), D.O
147-15)
However, all the laws mentioned will only be a valid cause of action to one who is the subject of
the post and who is aware of the post directed to him. Those who simply react and call foul because
a post imputes to another an act which tarnishes ones reputation without them being the subject
of the same has no remedy under any of our present laws.
Social media is a powerful tool. It is always best to set a limit on which issues to react to or which
people direct a post to.
While freedom of speech is well-enshrined in our Constitution, this right is not without any
limitations.
In the end, it is always best to devote the stroke of our fingers and the clicks of our mouse to
intellectual discourse rather than risk being held liable under our present laws. After all, the power
of our minds should be mightier than any sword there is.