Albeitthelegaljargonsandcasualadmirationfortheothersex,orsometimesthesame

(beggarsindeed,cannotbechoosers)theArellanoSecretFilesisaforumtoexpressones
thoughtsandemotionstothepublicthroughtheveilofanonymity.

Haveanyillfeelingstowardsanyclassmate,orbetteryet,ateacher?Post!Seean
attractivepersonbutdontknowtheirname,JohnDoe?Ask!Orbetteryet,knowanyjuicy
secrets?Tell!Whetheritcomesinaformofaquestion,rhetoricalornot,experience,questionsof
factandorlove,onethingremains,thepersonpostingwillremainanonymous.Perhapsitisthe
sellingcharacteristicorsenseofprotectiontheFacebookpageofferswhichgarneredthepage
over700likesandhundredsofposts,whichinmyopinion,isonetoomany.

But,whendoessuchforumturnfromchildsplayintoafullblownciviland/orcriminal
violation?Here,IwilldiscussthelegalimplicationsofthewritingsmadeintheArellanoLaw
Secretfilesandtheliabilityofthepersonscontributingandmaintainingtheforum.

CivilLiability

OneofthemostimportantprovisionsintheCivilCodeofthePhilippinesisArticle19,
otherwiseknownas"theprincipleofabuseofrights"whichwasformulatedincontemplationof
injuriesinflictedtowardsanotherwhicharenotpenalizedundertheRevisedPenalCode.Itstates
that"Everypersonmust,intheexerciseofhisrightsandintheperformanceofhisduties,act
withjustice,giveeveryonehisdue,andobservehonestyandgoodfaith."InGFEquityvs.
Valenzona,theCourtexpoundedonthesaidprinciplebyholdingthatthereisa"primordial
limitationonallrights"isrecognized.Inlayman'sterms,notjustbecauseonehasarightwhichis
byitselflegaldoesnotmeanthatthelawwillstilltoleratetheexerciseofsuchrightifitbecomes
asourceofillegality.IntheverywisewordsofJusticeCarpioMorales,"Whenarightis
exercisedinamannerwhichdoesnotconformwiththenormsenshrinedinArticle19andresults
indamagetoanother,alegalwrongistherebycommittedforwhichthewrongdoermustbeheld
responsible."

TheConstitutionrecognizestherightoffreedomofexpression.Specifically,"Nolaw
shallbepassedabridgingthefreedomofspeech,ofexpression,orofthepress,ortherightofthe
peoplepeaceablytoassembleandpetitionthegovernmentforredressofgrievances."(Article3,
Sec4)Thus,oneisfreetopostwhateverheorshethinksorfeelstoinanysocialmediaplatform
withoutanyrestraint.Theunderlyingconceptoftheprincipleofthefreedomofexpressionisthat
oneisfreetospeakhisorhermind.However,suchrighthasitslimits.Itisnotwithoutrestraint.
Inexercisingone'sfreedomofexpression,onemust"actwithjustice,giveeveryonehisdue,
observehonestyandgoodfaith."(Article19)Thus,inpostingonsocialmediaplatforms,due
respectmustbegiventotherightsofothers.Needlesstosay,therightofFreedomofSpeech
maynotbeusedwithoutgreatregardtotheharmandwellbeingofanother.Despiteitsprotected
natureasalawtospeakonesmind,itisnotallencompassingastoitsnonabridgingnature.
Rather,itisarightprotectedbylaw,butshouldbeexercisedwithcautionwheninthepublic
spherewhenothersaremorepronetodetriment.Itisnottosaythatonemustwalkaroundegg
shellsormustexercisesogreatacautionthatitessentiallyprohibitspersonsfromspeakingtheir
mindsbutrathertospeakonesmindincautiontoharmingothers.Intheend,itisamatterof
goodfaithandgoodtaste.However,goodfaithitself,isnotenoughtodivestoneofliability
underourpertinentlaws.Perhaps,itisuptothecourtstodecidewhatconstitutesdefamatory
statementsandwhichdonot.


InrelationwiththeliabilityofthepersonspostingintheSecretFiles,theycanbeheld
liableunderArticle19inrelationtoArticle20and21oftheCivilCode,whichprovidesa
remedyforaviolation.Thus,civilliabilitymaybeadjudgedagainsttheposterontheforumand
damageswhicharewillfullyornegligentlycausedbecauseofanincriminatingpostanddamages
maybeawardedtoapersoninjuredbyreasonofsuch.(Art.20)Apersonpostingontheforum
whoisfoundtobeliableunderArticle19mayalsobeadjugedliabletopaydamagesifhe
willfullycauseslossorinjurytothepersonsubjectofthepostinamannerthatis"contraryto
morals,goodcustomsorpublicpolicy."

Acomplaintfordamagesmayalsobeinstitutedagainstpersonsinvolvedinthe
contributingtoandmaintainingtheforumbasedonquasidelictorculpaaquiliana.Foranactto
constituteaquasidelict,threeelementsmustbepresent.Theseare:1.Damagessufferedbythe
plaintiff;2.Faultornegligenceofthedefendant;and3.theconnectionofcauseandeffect
betweenthefaultornegligenceofthedefendantandthedamagesincurredbytheplaintiff.
(Andamovs.IAC).Inthecaseofdamagesincurredarisingoutofincriminatorypostsonthe
SecretFiles,themaintainersofthesitemaybeheldliablebasedonquasidelictiftheir
negligenceisproved,inadditiontothefactthatsuchnegligenceisthe"proximatecause"ofthe
damagesincurredbythepersoninjuredbyacertainpost.Forexample,itmaybearguedthat
sincetheadministratorsofthewebsitewerenegligentinfilteringpostsorcommentsfoundonthe
site,damageswereincurredbyonewhoinjuredbyreasonofsuch.Theadministratorswouldthen
beadjudgedliableifitisshownthatthereisaproximatecausationordirectrelationbetweenthe
damagessufferedbythepersonmalignedandthenegligenceorshortcomingsofthe
administrator.Thesameholdstrueforpersonsresponsibleforpostingincriminatorystatements
ontheforumandarefoundtobeliablebasedonquasidelict.LiabilityundertheCivilCode
consistsofdamages,whichmayeitheractual,moral,exemplary,nominal,temperateor
liquidated.

CriminalLiability

IthaslongbeendebatedwhethercybercrimeisexistentinthePhilippines.Somuch
morethat,onJune20,2007,cybercrimewasproclaimedtobenonexistentbythethenincumbent
JusticeSecretary.Cybercrimewascharacterizedatotallydifferentcrimewhichcannotbe
chargedunderArticle353oftheRevisedPenalCode.[1]

However,thePhilippineCongressenactedtheCybercrimePreventionActof2012to
addressthegrowingnumberoflibelcommittedonline.Theabsenceofpolicepowerwithregard
tothelibelousmatterwrittenonlinemaybeharmfultotheonlinecommunityandthepersonal
livesofothers.Thepresenceofpolicepowerontheonlinecommunitywasthoughttoimpedethe
FreedomofExpression.True,thattheFreedomofexpressionshouldnotbehamperedbythe
enactmentoflawswhetheronlineoroffline,itisnotentirelysupreme.AccordingtotheU.S
SupremeCourt;

protectedspeechdoesnotbecomeunprotectedmerelybecauseitresembles
thelatter.TheConstitutionrequiresthereverse.Thepossibleharmtosociety
inpermittingsomeunprotectedspeechtogounpunishedisoutweighedbythe
possibilitythatpretectedspeechofothersmaybemuted.(footnoteid.at255
(citingBroadrickv.oklahoma,413u.s601,612(1973))


Today,underRepublicAct10175,otherwiseknownastheCybercrimePrevention
Act,thecybercrimeoffensesincludebutarenotlimitedto,theunlawfulandprohibitedactsof
libelandaidingandabettinginthecommissionofthecybercrime.Thepenaltyofthesaidcrime
isimprisonmentofprisonmayororreclusiontemporal,dependingonthegravityofthecrime
committedandaheftyfinerangingfromP200,0001,000,000.Thus,makingitimperativeto
distinguishwhomaybeliableunderthelaws.

Furthermore,theRevisedPenalCodeofthePhilippinesimposescriminalliabilityon
thosecommitthecrimeoflibel.Inonecase,theelementsofwhichwereenunciated,whichare
(a)itmustbedefamatory;(b)itmustbemalicious;(c)itmustbegivenpublicity;and(d)the
victimmustbeidentifiable(Almendrasvs.Almendras)

AccordingtoBlacksLawDictionary,"Astatementthattendstoinjurethereputationof
apersonreferredtoit.TheStatementislikelytolowerthatpersonintheestimationofreasonable
peopleandinparticulartocausethatpersontoberegardedwithfeelingsofhatred,contempt,
ridicule,fearordislike.

Letusnowtakeacloserlookintotheculpabilityofpersonspostingintheforum.For
adefamatorystatementtobeconsideredlibelous,oneoftherequirementsisthattheimputation
mustbedirectedatanidentifiablenaturalorjuridicalperson,oronewhoisdead.However,with
respecttoourlaws,doesthislawapplyifthesubjectofthepostwrittenintheforumisidentified
bymeansofinitialsornameswithmissinglettersandsubstitutedbyasterisks?Onlyreadily
identifiable,ifthereisnoroomfordoubtastotheidentityofthesubjectofthepost.Forexample,
ifheorsheissingledoutusingtheirschedulesoridentifyingcharacteristicssuchascelebrity
lookalikeoranydistinctoutfitwornonthatspecificday.

True,thatwrittenworksofscholarsandpublicizedbooksoflawstatethatthepublication
needtorefertothepartybynameorifnotnamed,itmustbesostatedthatthedescriptioninthe
publicationissodescribedthat3rdpartiesmaybeabletoidentifytheperson.However,what
constitutesasidentifiableinthedescription?Willknowledgeofpersonslimitedtothosethatare
abletoidentifythepersonthroughtheattirewornthatday,orknowledgeofthepersonsstated
thatsuchisinaparticularroom,inaparticularsubjectandataparticulartimetoconstitute
identifiableby3rdparties?Thepostersintheforumhavetwodefenses,whichtheycanusesoas
toescapeliabilityunderthelaw.First,postersontheforummaytakerefugeinthefactthat
personsstatedarestatedsoanonymouslythatthepersondescribedoftentimesisunidentifiable.
Second,thepostersthemselvesareanonymous.Soanonymousthatjurisdictionovertheirperson
isdifficultornearlyimpossibletoacquire.Noteventakingintoconsideration,theresidenceof
suchperson,ifdueprocessastoacquiringjurisdictionoverthepersonwastobetakeninto
consideration.

Willmerepostingofsecretsandopinionsofotherpersonsconstituteadefamatory
imputationundertheRevisedPenalCode?Yes,aslongastheimputationconsistsofa"crime
allegedlycommittedbytheoffendedparty,"ora"viceordefectwhetherrealorimaginaryofthe
offendedparty"or"anyactoromission,condition,status,of,orcircumstancerelatingtothe
offendedparty."Thepersonspostingcannothidebehindtheprotectionofgoodfaithand
freedomofexpression.Everydefamatorystatementispresumedtobemaliciouseveniftrue,if
nojustifiableorgoodmotiveinmakingit.Inthiscase,someofthestatementsmadebythe

posters,whetherornotmadewithgoodintentions,cannotdivestitofitsmaliciouscharacter.

WithrespecttothemaintaineroftheFacebookpage,publicationmeanstheactof
declaringorannouncingtothepubic..underthe[CopyrightActof1976],anoriginalworkis
consideredpublishedonlywhenitisfirstmadepublicwithoutrestrictionispunishableunder
cybercrimlawasaidingandabettingtocybercrime.TheRPClikewisepunishesanypersonwho
shallpublish,exhibit,orcausethepublicationorexhibitionofanydefamationinwritingorby
similarmeansshallbeliabletothesameextentasifheweretheauthorofsuchunderArticle360.
ThemaintaineroftheFacebookpageisdeemedequallyliableasheisthepersonprimary
responsibleinpublishingsuchinformation.Despitethefactthatthemaintainerofthepageedits
ormakesthecontentmoreanonymous,itdoesnotdivesthimofhisliabilityastheinstrumentof
thecommissionofthecrime.Itisofnoobstaclewhethersuchmaintainerofthepageisingood
faith.Goodfaithisnotavaliddefenseagainstthecommissionpublishingsuchinformation
withouttheconsentofthepersondescribedorstatedinthearticles.

R.A10175(CybercrimeLaw)specificallyprovidesfortheJurisdictionandInternational
CooperationofStatestotheprosecutionoftheoffencesprovidedthereinunderSection21and22
ofthelaw.However,theworldwideweb(WWW),internationalincharacter,shouldbe
examinedwithmuchscrutiny.Itisnotdisputedthatunderthelaw,theRegionalTrialCourt
confersoriginaljurisdictionovercybercrimematters.However,doourcourtshavejurisdictionif
thepersonorpersonsindicatedinsuchcommissionofthecrimeisaforeigneroranonresident
foreigner?IfthecommissionofthecrimetookplaceoutsideofthejurisdictionoftheRepublic
willourcourtsstillhavejurisdiction?Howwillconflictsoflawhandlesuchprosecutionofthe
crime?

Astothesitusofthecommissionofthecrime,wherethesubstantialelementsofthe
constitutionofthecrimetookplace,confersthecourtsofthesaidplacesuchjurisdictiontohear
casesregardingthecommissionofthecrime.Ifthewriterandthepublisherofthelibelousmatter
waswrittenorpublishedabroad,ourcourtsmaybedivestedofsuchjurisdictiontohearcases
beforeit.Underconflictsoflaw,theconflictsoflawsregardingrulesonprosecutionofcrimes
shallbeobserved.Inthiscase,theremayexistaconflictsoflawcaseastheelementofforeign
mattermaybepresent.Astothecharacteroftheworldwideweb,itmaybeaccessedandinany
country.Thus,theexerciseofothercountriescourtsmaybefurtherlookedinto.

Ifthecaseissosituatedinaforeigncountry,theforeigncourtmayeitheracceptthe
renvoiincludingitsrulesonconflictsoflaworrejecttherenvoi.Ifthecourtsrejecttherenvoi,
thenthePhilippinecourtshavenoremedybuttosurrendersuchjurisdictiontotheforeigncourts.
Inthiscasethepublisherandposterofthelibelousmaterialmaybesubjecttodifferent
interpretationsoflawortoanentirelydifferentlaw.Theproblemofjurisdictionofcourtswill
arisewhenthereareforeignmatterspresent.

Forcomparison,accordingtotheEnglishlaw,theapplicationofcybercrimelawis
differentforitsownapplication.Forinstance,thecourtthathasjurisdictionovercasesof
cybercrime,isthevenuewherethelibelousstatementisuploadedtotheinternet.Which,inmy
opinion,mightbedifficulttodistinguishforpersonsnotprivywithtechnology.Thus,the
offendedpartymustfirstlearnthelocationwherethedefamatorystatementwasuploadedto
commenceaction.Ontheotherhand,JapaneseJurisdictionoffersamuchdifferentmannerof

prosecution;Japan'spolicetakeamoreactiveroleintheprosecutionofcrimesinsteadof
prosecutors.TheJapanesepolicehold"consultations"withthepostersoflibelousmatter,which
inturncanleadtoinformalpoliceaction.Muchdifferenttoourlawswhereintheprosecutortakes
theactiveroleininformationgathering.Itmustbeknown,thatstaredecisisisnonexistentin
japan.Thus,thereisnosuchsystemofprecedentandeachcasemaybehandledanddecidedin
differentmanners.(salilK.Mehhra,postamessageandgotojail:Criminalizinginternetlibelin
japanandtheunitedstates,78U.COLO.L>REV.767,76869(2007)

Perhapstheapplicationofcasesagainstcybercrimeisonlymademorecomplexifthe
presenceofforeignmattersispresent.However,ifsuchissituatedinthePhilippines,thenthe
executionofsuchcasesaremuchmoresimplifiedasthePhilippinesspecificallyprovidesfor
lawspunishingsuchacts.

Itisnotquestionablethatdefamatorystatementsthroughsocialmediaareactionable
underthePhilippineLaws.Asdiscussedabove,personsmaintainingorcontributingtothesite
maybesubjecttocivilorcriminalliabilityandbeadjudgedtopaythecorrespondingdamagesor
penalties.Inmyview,itisonlyamatterofenforcementofactionsthroughdifferentforeign
courtsbecauseofthefluidnatureoftheinternetasitisaccessibleinternationally,makingmatters
unclearastowherethesuitmaybeinitiatedandthepersonsliableforsuch.Furthermore,the
determinationofwhatconstitutesdefamatoryand/ormaliciousdependsuponthecircumstances
ofeachcase.PersonsmustlearntoexercisetheirFreedomofSpeechaccordinglyassuchmaybe
thereasontoholdthemliableunderourlawsorthelawsofothercountriesifusedmaliciouslyor
causeharmuponothers.
Inconclusion,notallmatterspostedintheArellanoLawSecretFilesareactionablein
ourcourts.However,themaintainer,althoughnotconstantlypostingdefamatorycontent,maybe
heldseverallyliableforuploadingcontent,whichcontainlibelousordefamatorystatements.At
theendoftheday,itisamatterofexercisingdiscretionaryFreedomofSpeechforthepostersand
ourcourtstoexercisecarefulscrutinyindeterminingwhoisliableunderourlaws.So,goahead,
post!