Encio Law Office

𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗣𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗔𝗱𝗺𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗙𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗼𝗺 𝗪𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘀 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗟𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗖𝘆𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝗟𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗹
A legal analysis by Dean Ralph Sarmiento

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝘆𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝗹𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗹 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝘄?

Cyber libel is defamation that is committed in online platforms. As defined in Section 4(c)(4) of 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗔𝗰𝘁 𝗡𝗼. 𝟭𝟬𝟭𝟳𝟱 or the 𝗖𝘆𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟮, it consists of the unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝟯𝟱𝟱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗣𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗲 that are committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.

Cyber libel is committed when someone publishes a defamatory statement about someone on the internet. The law holds the author, publisher, and anyone who takes an active role in the act of posting liable. The moment the defamatory statement is posted online and names or identifies a real person, cyber libel is consummated.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗶 𝘃. 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲?

In 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗶 𝘃. 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 (G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014), the Court also held that 𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗼𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗰𝘆𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝗹𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗹 unless the act is a deliberate republication done with malice. The ruling focused on personal criminal liability and clarified that passive administrators and platform owners are not treated as publishers. The Court held:

“The question is: are online postings such as "Liking" an openly defamatory statement, ‘Commenting’ on it, or ‘Sharing’ it with others, to be regarded as ‘aiding or abetting?’ In libel in the physical world, if Nestor places on the office bulletin board a small poster that says, ‘Armand is a thief!,’ he could certainly be charged with libel. If Roger, seeing the poster, writes on it, ‘I like this!,’ that could not be libel since he did not author the poster. If Arthur, passing by and noticing the poster, writes on it, ‘Correct!,’ would that be libel? No, for he merely expresses agreement with the statement on the poster. He still is not its author. Besides, it is not clear if aiding or abetting libel in the physical world is a crime.”

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝘀 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟰?

In Disini, the Court held that 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗵𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁. The Court held:

“In the cyberworld, there are many actors: a) the blogger who originates the assailed statement; b) the blog service provider like Yahoo; c) the internet service provider like PLDT, Smart, Globe, or Sun; d) the internet café that may have provided the computer used for posting the blog; e) the person who makes a favorable comment on the blog; and f) the person who posts a link to the blog site…”

𝗙𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗼𝗺 𝘄𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘀 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗵𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁. What the Court examined in Disini was the structure of Facebook groups, forums, and pages that existed in 2014. 𝗔𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲, 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀. Page admins did not receive anonymous submissions. They did not act as editors. They did not select which statements to publish. The Court analyzed 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘂𝗺𝘀, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀. That is the crucial distinction.

𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗼𝗺 𝘄𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁?

Freedom walls as they exist today on Facebook work in a very different way. 𝗣𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆. Their submissions are not posted automatically. People send the statements to the admins of freedom walls and it is the admins that post under the name of the freedom wall itself. The admins 𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘀. Hence, every post is created by the 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗱𝗺𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵 the same on their platform.

𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗼𝗺 𝘄𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗱𝗺𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗮𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁?

Page admins of freedom walls become automatically liable the moment they publish a defamatory post about a named or identifiable individual. They are 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 of the online forums contemplated by the Supreme Court in the 2014 Disini case. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗸 “𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁.” They 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, which is the essential element of cyber libel.

Once the page admins of the freedom wall publish a defamatory post that names a real or identifiable person and harm that person’s reputation, they 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗮𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁. Note that the law also presumes malice because the content is defamatory.

𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗶?

No, this follows the logic of the Supreme Court in Disini. Disini only protects intermediaries or passive admins of online forums or platforms who have nothing to do with the creation or publication of the defamatory post. 𝗙𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗼𝗺 𝘄𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗱𝗺𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗱𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗲. They take part in the content. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗶𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗲𝗲.

The Supreme Court in Disini never said that a person who chooses to publish defamatory content is free from liability simply because they run a page. Disini only protects those who do not participate in the content at all, that is, those who merely like, share, react, or comment on the ongoing discussion.

𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗱𝗺𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗲 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀?

No. 𝗖𝘆𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝗹𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 as soon as a defamatory post that names a real or identifiable person is published by the freedom wall admins. 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗺 𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗲. Criminal liability has already attached. At most, it can be used by the page admins to mitigate their criminal liability, but it does not undo the fact that the admins have already committed the act that consummates the crime of cyber libel.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗼𝗺 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻?

Freedom of expression does not cover defamation, false allegations, or shaming of individuals without basis. Anonymous speech is allowed, but 𝗮𝗻𝗼𝗻𝘆𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻. Freedom walls cannot claim free speech when they choose to publish statements that destroy names and reputations.

𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗼𝗺 𝘄𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗳𝘂𝗹?

No. Freedom walls can be helpful spaces for feedback and community issues. However, they become harmful the moment admins use their platform to destroy reputations.

Persons NOT ALLOWED TO ENTER the polling place or within the 50-meter radius from the polling place:

1. Any officer or member of the AFP or PNP
2. Barangay tanods, security guards, special policemen, CAFGUs, or para-military forces
3. Armed or unarmed extra-legal police forces

EXCEPT for voting purposes

Source: Sec. 34, COMELEC Resolution 11076