When stupidity resulted in something good

Alyzza Agustin's post. Thanks to Topgear.
The incident involving car model Alyzza Agustin and Police Chief Superintendent Alexander Ignacio is one example of something good coming out of a stupid act.

God works in mysterious ways indeed.

Last Sept. 28, Agustin, who apparently enjoys social media but does not comprehend it’s power and perils proudly posted in her Facebook and Instagram accounts that she was able to get away violating the color coding traffic scheme in Metro Manila by using a calling card Ignacio gave her.

She bragged: “Nahuli na naman ako dahil coding but because of you Boss Alex wala ng huli-huli. Thank you so much sa napaka-useful mong card with matching dedication pa.”

She even posted the calling card of Ignacio and with a signed note at the back which said: “Please assist my EA, Alyzza Agustin.”

EA is understood to be Executive Assistant.

Of course the traffic policeman let Ignacio’s EA get away with the violation which ordinary motorists who are not the EA of any government official would not have escaped without paying a fine and undergo so many hassles.

It was a good thing Agustin didn’t realize the perils of social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram): that there’s nothing private once posted. There’s no such thing as limiting your message to your friends because the friends of your friends can share what they find interesting, intriguing, infuriating.

That’s what happened to Agustin’s post. Several netizens reacted to it because it showed misuse of authority on the part of Santiago.

President Aquino’s “no wang-wang” policy was most applauded because it was supposed to put government officials into their proper role as public servants. A government position is not supposed to be a position of privilege to be used to put officials above the long- suffering ordinary citizens.

The color coding scheme was devised to ease traffic in Metro Manila which is a daily curse to commuters and motorists. Giving one an exemption for a flimsy reason that she is a friend of an official makes a mockery of the regulation and rubs salt to the suffering of the commuters and motorists.

That’s why Agustin’s post drew collective ire.

Ignacio now denies that Agustin was his EA. So what was she?

Someone must have told Agustin what a stupid thing she did because she later deleted those posts. Too late. In social media, once posted, it’s spread (goes viral) and it cannot be recalled.

Not even her apology could undo what she did: “I would like to apologize to everyone who was affected and offended by my post: fellow motorists, Director Alexander C. Ignacio and his family, and the PNP institution as a whole. I was just overwhelmed by that moment because I was caught in traffic for hours coming from work.

I would like to make it a point that I do not know Director Alexander C. Ignacio personally. I mean no harm to anyone, and just like any Filipino motorist, I would like a little convenience on the road. Naniniwala po ako na ang bawat isa sa atin ay may pagkukulang din naman sa daan. Pasensya na po sa aking pagkakamali.”

Ignacio declared that he is “not a womanizer” and complained that his family “ including my ailing mother, is badly affected by this scandal.”

Upon arriving from Malaysia, where he attended an ASEAN Police Conference, he requested “ for private moments “with his family.

He also said he is consulting with his lawyers about filing of charges against Agustin for “moral damages caused by the calling card scandal.”

It’s so funny.

Hooray for social media!

SC decision on Cybercrime law:OK, but…

SC justices prepare to hear arguments on 2012 Cybercrime Prevention Law . Photo by Yahoo.ph

SC justices prepare to hear arguments on 2012 Cybercrime Prevention Law . Photo by Yahoo.ph

We did not fully get what we asked Supreme Court regarding the Republic Act 10175 otherwise known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 which was to declare the whole of it as unconstitutional primarily because of its libel provisions. But we can live with the Supreme Court decision released yesterday.

We still have to fully analyze the SC decision which upheld the constitutionality of the controversial law but struck down the most odious “take down”provision which empowered the Department of Justice) to restrict or block access to any online post which it deemed violating the law without any court order.

The court also said only original authors of libelous material are covered by the cybercrime law, and not those who merely received or reacted to it. So those who “liked” and shared a libelous online item won’t be punished. Good luck to whoever is tasked to trace the original author after a post is shared and reposted thousands of times.

But what we are not happy about the SC decision is that, not only did it uphold the constitutionality of the libel law as a criminal offense but also sustained the increase in penalty.

R.A 10175 increased the penalty for computer-related libel twelvefold. From a minimum punishment of six months imprisonment under the Revised Penal Code, the Cybercrime Prevention Law increased it to six years. The maximum punishment was doubled from six to twelve years in prison.

File photo of Anti Cybercrime Law rally at SC. Photo by Mario Ignacio IV for VERA Files.

File photo of Anti Cybercrime Law rally at SC. Photo by Mario Ignacio IV for VERA Files.

VERA Files, a group I’m affiliated with, is one of the petitioners against the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 with Alexander Adonis, the Davao correspondent, who was convicted and imprisoned for libel, and other journalists. With Harry Roque, our lawyer, we asked the High Court to declare the law illegal because it violates basic human rights (freedom of expression) and the Constitution (freedom of expression provision).

In a statement issued from Bangkok, where he is attending a forum on freedom of expression, Roque said “Centerlaw and our client, Alexander Adonis welcome the other provisions of the Act such as the Take Down clause and the decision to strike down the real time gathering of information. This is indeed a major victory for privacy and the right of the people.”

Roque said, “The high court should not abdicate its duty to protect freedom of expression. No less than the U.N. Human Rights Committee has already declared that Philippine Criminal Libel Law is contrary to Freedom of Expression. The Court’s decision failing to declare libel as unconstitutional is therefore contrary to Human Rights Law to be secure in their communication. “

Roque said the fight is not over: “We will continue the fight to nullify criminal libel. Cyber libel infringes on free speech.”

DOJ Assistant Secretary Geronimo L. Sy, head of the Office of Cybercrime, said R.A 10175 will take effect minus the provision struck down by the Supreme Court.

“Meanwhile we will endorse to Congress an upgraded and better version of the Cybercrime law,” Sy said adding that they have already prepared Version Two of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. They will now be crafting the implementing rules.

Statement of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines:

“A half-inch forward but a century backward.

“This best describes the Supreme Court’s decision on the petitions to declare the Cybercrime Prevention Act unconstitutional.

“For while the high court rightly declared a number of provisions of the statute unconstitutional, it otherwise upheld the law and, worse, online libel, thus adding yet another element — ironically the very frontier we all believed would be most immune to attempts to suppress free expression — to an offense that former colonizers had, a hundred years ago, declared criminal in nature to stifle dissent, and which succeeding governments have conveniently retained in our Revised Penal Code for the very same reason and as a convenient tool for the corrupt and the inept in power to harass and muzzle those with the temerity to bring their venalities to light.

“By extending the reach of the antediluvian libel law into cyberspace, the Supreme Court has suddenly made a once infinite venue for expression into an arena of fear, a hunting ground for the petty and vindictive, the criminal and autocratic.

“We can only hope that the Supreme Court will not remain blind to this when appeals to the ruling are filed.
“But if it does, then there can only be one response lest we be forced to surrender all our other rights — resistance.”

SC decision on Cybercrime law:OK, but…

SC justices prepare to hear arguments on 2012 Cybercrime Prevention Law . Photo by Yahoo.ph

SC justices prepare to hear arguments on 2012 Cybercrime Prevention Law . Photo by Yahoo.ph

We did not fully get what we asked Supreme Court regarding the Republic Act 10175 otherwise known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 which was to declare the whole of it as unconstitutional primarily because of its libel provisions. But we can live with the Supreme Court decision released yesterday.

We still have to fully analyze the SC decision which upheld the constitutionality of the controversial law but struck down the most odious “take down”provision which empowered the Department of Justice) to restrict or block access to any online post which it deemed violating the law without any court order.

The court also said only original authors of libelous material are covered by the cybercrime law, and not those who merely received or reacted to it. So those who “liked” and shared a libelous online item won’t be punished. Good luck to whoever is tasked to trace the original author after a post is shared and reposted thousands of times.

But what we are not happy about the SC decision is that, not only did it uphold the constitutionality of the libel law as a criminal offense but also sustained the increase in penalty.

R.A 10175 increased the penalty for computer-related libel twelvefold. From a minimum punishment of six months imprisonment under the Revised Penal Code, the Cybercrime Prevention Law increased it to six years. The maximum punishment was doubled from six to twelve years in prison.

File photo of Anti Cybercrime Law rally at SC. Photo by Mario Ignacio IV for VERA Files.

File photo of Anti Cybercrime Law rally at SC. Photo by Mario Ignacio IV for VERA Files.

VERA Files, a group I’m affiliated with, is one of the petitioners against the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 with Alexander Adonis, the Davao correspondent, who was convicted and imprisoned for libel, and other journalists. With Harry Roque, our lawyer, we asked the High Court to declare the law illegal because it violates basic human rights (freedom of expression) and the Constitution (freedom of expression provision).

In a statement issued from Bangkok, where he is attending a forum on freedom of expression, Roque said “Centerlaw and our client, Alexander Adonis welcome the other provisions of the Act such as the Take Down clause and the decision to strike down the real time gathering of information. This is indeed a major victory for privacy and the right of the people.”

Roque said, “The high court should not abdicate its duty to protect freedom of expression. No less than the U.N. Human Rights Committee has already declared that Philippine Criminal Libel Law is contrary to Freedom of Expression. The Court’s decision failing to declare libel as unconstitutional is therefore contrary to Human Rights Law to be secure in their communication. “

Roque said the fight is not over: “We will continue the fight to nullify criminal libel. Cyber libel infringes on free speech.”

DOJ Assistant Secretary Geronimo L. Sy, head of the Office of Cybercrime, said R.A 10175 will take effect minus the provision struck down by the Supreme Court.

“Meanwhile we will endorse to Congress an upgraded and better version of the Cybercrime law,” Sy said adding that they have already prepared Version Two of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. They will now be crafting the implementing rules.

Statement of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines:

“A half-inch forward but a century backward.

“This best describes the Supreme Court’s decision on the petitions to declare the Cybercrime Prevention Act unconstitutional.

“For while the high court rightly declared a number of provisions of the statute unconstitutional, it otherwise upheld the law and, worse, online libel, thus adding yet another element — ironically the very frontier we all believed would be most immune to attempts to suppress free expression — to an offense that former colonizers had, a hundred years ago, declared criminal in nature to stifle dissent, and which succeeding governments have conveniently retained in our Revised Penal Code for the very same reason and as a convenient tool for the corrupt and the inept in power to harass and muzzle those with the temerity to bring their venalities to light.

“By extending the reach of the antediluvian libel law into cyberspace, the Supreme Court has suddenly made a once infinite venue for expression into an arena of fear, a hunting ground for the petty and vindictive, the criminal and autocratic.

“We can only hope that the Supreme Court will not remain blind to this when appeals to the ruling are filed.
“But if it does, then there can only be one response lest we be forced to surrender all our other rights — resistance.”