Press Release
October 7, 2012

TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW PART 2
PRESS CONFERENCE AFTER FILING OF CANDIDACY
OCTOBER 5, 2012

Cayetano: The best "Mea Culpa" is to amend the Cybercrime Act

Topic discussed:

  •  Decriminalizing libel

  • Stop hacking

  • Amend the Cybercrime act

  • Libel covers electronic media

ASC: Doon sa Anti-Cyber Crime Law, I think it's an opportunity. First of all, hindi na napapansin ang pag-decriminalize ng libel hanggang na-bring up ito. Although many of us will be filing amendments on Monday on the Anti-Cyber Crime Law, I think we should also exert all efforts na i-decriminalize na ang libel. There's no other place that's a civilized democratic society na ang punishment for libel ay criminal penalty. Dapat 'yan civil.

It doesn't mean though that everyone now can plunder each other. It's a recognition na noong ginawa ang revised penal code, it was the 1930s, wala pang internet noon, wala pang text. Kapag na-dyaryo ka that time, sira na ang reputation mo. Ngayon, kahit ilang text message na ang kumalat tungkol sa'yo, hindi ibig sabihin maniniwala na ang tao.

It's a defense world. The problem with people defending the Cyber Crime Law is that they don't really understand the medium. They don't understand that internet, Twitter, Facebook, this is about individual expressions, freedom, empowerment, and our democracy. Ibig sabihin, the freedom of expression granted by the Constitution took a new life in this medium.

It's not like, for example, in the television, the evening news, kapag negative ang news sa'yo doon, kailangan mong sumagot kaagad. At kailangan sa same station at same time. Kung hindi, 'yung reputation mo pwedeng masira. Kung may Twitter account ka, pwede mong sagutin agad-agad. Kaya kapag sinabing si Politician B ay magnanakaw, he can say na may kalaban lang kasi siya pero hindi totoo 'yon. Unlike noong araw na kapag na-dyaryo ka, sira na ang reputation mo the next day.

It should be realized that people have matured so much. It's really understanding the medium. Many people only see journalists na anchor sa big TV stations. Hindi nila nakikita na madami pa tayong journalists lalo sa rural areas. Sila, kakasuhan ng libel, 'yung pahayagan walang pera to get him a lawyer. O kaya aarestuhin ng Friday night para i-intimidate sila ng mga may hawak ng kulungan nang hanggang Sunday. O kaya fa-file-an ka ng libel in three different provinces para maubos ang pera mo sa kakaikot. Nangyayari ito. But if it's a civil case, it will be more simple.

It should be a lesson to the Senate that although the people gave us the power to represent them, people also want to be empowered.

For example, sa akin, I consider myself media savvy and technology savvy. And I thought that because we have live streaming, that's enough. Obviously, hindi. Bakit? Sa live streaming kasi, walang feedback. Kaya ang aking proposal ay real-time tweeting from the Senate. Pwedeng ang Secretariat, o a special group in the Senate.

Halimbawa, may session ngayon, iti-tweet ngayon, halimbawa, "Now discussing the FOI." Why? So that the netizens and the people can give feedback right away.

Second, we have very few alliances. In modern foreign countries, the public and private sector, and the academe are a triumvirate. Sa atin, halos hindi pinapansin ang academe, except kapag grabe na ang issue katulad ngayon sa Cyber Crime Law.

I think what the Senate and the House of Representatives should do is to talk to the association of law schools, the association of private universities, and the association of the state universities, and have a MOA na 'yung mga bills, magkaroon sila ng centers for legislation and we share and they really look at it and give their opinion.

Suggestions ko ito para 'yung legislation is really pro-people. Nangyayari in real-time na may sharing talaga. So kapag i-tweet mo ganito ang nangyayari, Kasi dito sa batas na ito, ang nangyari parang nagulat tayo. Nabulaga tayo sa nangyaring ganito, which should not happen in a modern society like this.

But for some of you who will say na "Hindi, kasi ang tao kasi hindi nakatutok." Kahit tutukan mo kasi, ang problema, kapag amendments, any senator can stand up and say na ito bago. Hindi katulad ng bill noong finile mo.

Bakit ba may first, second, and third reading? So that there will be enough notice to everyone na ito ang laman ng bill. But the period of amendment is a maverick. Because from that point in time and the bicam, you can insert things that usually aren't in the main bill. So to make it more democratic and transparent, social media in addition to the traditional media is the answer.

Halimbawa, sa bicam, although nandoon ang media, hindi real-time iyon. Kasi they are not allowed inside. Pero kapag may secretariat na naroon, tapos nagte-text or tweet na sinasabi kung ano ang dinidiscuss at ang arguments, people can interact and can react real-time.

My advice to the netizens right now regarding the law is that (1) keep up the pressure so that ma-amend o repeal ang masasamang provision, (2) do not be intimidated. Do not allow any statement from the government stop you from expressing your opinion and criticizing anyone or any institution that you feel are doing something wrong. (3) Tigilan na natin ang hacking.

Kasi ang nakikita natin diyan, and I want an investigation on this, bakit ang baba ng security ng ating government websites? Talaga namang may magagaling na hackers, pero ganoon lang ba kasimple 'yon? So if there's an attack to the country, ganoon kadali na i-hack ang lahat ng sites?

(stop hacking) My message to the hackers is that you have made your point and your message is loud and clear tungkol sa pagkakamali sa law na 'yon, but if we keep attacking websites, especially government websites, it will give a signal to other countries or to those doing this in the Philippines na mahina ang ating security.

In fact, baka dapat baliktad. The hackers should help strengthen our security.

Reporter: So you are pushing for an investigation on hackers?

ASC: Nangyayari naman kahit sa US, hindi ba, na na-ha-hack ang sites nila. Pero ang nangyayari, hindi lahat ng agencies. At kung mayroon man, nahuhuli agad kung sino. Pero sa atin, baligtad. Ang grupo ng hackers ang may malaking army. It doesn't show confidence in the part of the government.

That's why kapag pinag-usapan 'yung anti-money laundering, pinag-usapan 'yung national ID, sa akin hindi ganoon kalaki ang confidence ko that the government can keep these confidential.

Reporter: Sino po ba ang dapat nagbabantay?

ASC: Kung sino ang in charge of the website, at ang NBI, kung may capability sila na manghabol o manghuli, at pangatlo, the specific government agency na na-hack.

I'm hoping na 'yung sa Senate hindi maha-hack din kasi ipapatawag din natin kung sino ang in charge sa Senate. Nakakatawa naman na imbestigahan mo ang iba pero sa sariling bahay mo mangyayari din.

Reporter: Ano po ang message ninyo sa group of hackers?

ASC: The group of hackers can be productive or counter-productive. So far, you've been productive by (1) expressing the feelings of the netizens, (2) by showing us the weakness of our websites so we know that we have to increase security, (3) by heightening knowledge and advocacy about IT.

But if you continue to just keep hacking and hacking at nagmumukhang hindi kaya ng gobyerno na depensahan ang kanyang sarili at hindi kayo mahuli, magiging counterproductive. Because remember, terrorists, at kapag may kalaban kang ibang bansa, any basic military tactician will tell you communication lines are always important. Kapag may attack, ang una mong babanatan ay communication. And now nagiging primary na through the internet.

One-third of our people already have the internet. And government is required na madami silang website. So I'm hoping that the hackers will declare victory na.

I'm not saying na dapat unhackable ang website mo kasi nangyayari talaga 'yan. At sa bawat security system na ilagay mo, may nag-aaral na agad kung paano tatalunin. Pero 'yung sinasabi ko na nakakatawa na na sunod-sunod naha-hack 'yung mga websites. Ang hindi lang nila ma-hack 'yung website ko dahil hindi pa naka-up.

Reporter: Sir, mga menor de edad daw po 'yung nai-involve sap agha-hack ng mga website.

ASC: Pwede. Kasi ang pinaka-creative na age for mathematics is between 12-17. Einstein and the rest of the mathematicians, their productive years are during that age. So I don't doubt na 'yung ibang napakagaling sa programming and whatever technical terms are teenagers.

Reporter: Sir, ina-attack ang mga congressmen and senators na pumirma sa Cyber Crime Bill.

ASC: I think the whole congress is at fault. Whether you say you voted for it, you didn't vote for it, or you weren't there, kung mali, that's part of leadership. Saying sorry, we were wrong, we will correct it.

Kaya dumadami ang issues sa Senate. Kapag dinedepensahan ang mali.

Reporter: Maaari dawn a may mga ganoong bill na ganyan din ang nangyari.

ASC: That's always a possibility. That's why we're saying that legislation is never permanent. We cannot pass permanent legislation. You should always assume that it's not perfect and you can amend it anytime. The question is how to keep people interested, like the netizens. If they are interested in this, how do you keep them interested in other issues in the country.

Reporter: Kahit 'yung sponsor ng bill at ang ibang pumirma said that there should be an amendment. Masasabi ba na at fault ang sponsor ng bill?

ASC: The best mea culpa is to amend the bill. It's like FOI. Kung titingnan mo ang FOI, karamihan ng congressman at senador payag. Bakit hindi mapasa-pasa? Hindi ko sasabihin ano specifically ang mali nila, dahil kasama din sa ethics namin 'yon.

Pero tingnan na lang natin ito bilang isang produkto. Sa isang produkto kapag may nakitang mali, ano ba ang ginagawa? Nire-recall mo, inaayos mo, saka mo iro-roll out ulit. In this case, ang aking challenge sa trimedia, 'yung ayaw magpasa ng FOI Bill, at ang ayaw mag-amend ng decriminalization ng libel, ordinary or sa cyber, i-boycott ninyo. Bakit? Ano ba ang hilig ng pulitiko? Hindi ba microphone at camera?

When I say microphone, I am also referring to the microphone used when one is being interviewed by print journalists. Have a news blackout especially for those who say that they're for it but won't cooperate to pass them. We had several months before sa kongresong ito. So what's stopping the senate president and the speaker of the house from meeting and saying there are two bills that are essential for transparency and accountability, and good governance. The FOI and the decriminalization of libel.

It's not like, for example, the RH Bill. If I talk about the RH Bill, hati ang kwartong ito. O hati ang bansa. That Bill really deserves a debate. But the FOI at ang pag-decriminalize ng libel, who will be against this? Or who here will say that we will be more transparent if there is a libel law with criminal clauses? And who here will say that the country will be better off without FOI?

Reporter: Is it necessary to wait for the SC decision?

ASC: That's a good question, but the answer is no. Because the SC deals with the constitutionality or legality. The legislation deals with not only the legality but also the wisdom of the law.

Pwedeng sabihin ng SC na hindi ito naniniwala sa batas, but it's legal. Halimbawa, sasabihin namin sa Kongreso ngayon na ipinagbabawal namin ang pag-inom at paninigarilyo. The SC will have to uphold this like the Prohibition Act in the US. But they will say that it's not practical. O baka hindi maganda.

So the wisdom of the law is what we're proposing to be discussed again dito. Of course, if the SC says it's unconstitutional, we don't even have to amend this. Masa-strike down 'yan. But even if you strike it down, mayroon pa ding libel.

Remember, ang sinabi sa Libel Law, "and similar means of publication." Kaya lang gusto ng mga advocate ng Anti Cyber Crime na ilagay sa Cyber Crime, kasi may mga judges na nagsasabing kapag hindi sa dyaryo o hindi sa radio o TV na-publish, hindi libel 'yan. But most lawyers will tell you that the "other means" also encompass technological advances.

Kaya ang susi na matanggal dito ay ang libel provision. Kapag ni-repeal namin ang libel provision, mayroon ka pa din libel sa Libel Law. Kaya kapag may nagsabi pa din na magnanakaw si ganito at kasuhan siya ng libel, makakasuhan pa din 'yon.

Reporter: Ano 'yon, sa online?

ASC: Yes. Because the original Libel Law says "other means of publication." It's just that for other judges, ang interpretation nila, traditional media lang.

Reporter: Sabi ng Palace they want the libel provision to stay. How will this affect the amendment?

ASC: That's why we're a democracy. When people speak, leaders also listen. I think he's convinced of the wisdom because many politicians are saying you cannot have absolute freedom, what is the remedy for responsibility? And my answer to that is civil liability. Civil case of defamation.

Meaning, sinabi mo na ang isang politiko ay magnanakaw dahil may nabasa ka, at lumabas pero comment siya, walang libel. Walang civil liability. Pero may phrase na inimbento ka at may malice dahil makakalaban mo sa eleksyon, you can sue him for civil case for damages, pero walang kulong 'yon. Hindi ka aarestuhin. Wala kang threat of defilation of liberty, which, by the way, is in the UN Convention on this topic.

Reporter: Sa Cyber Crime Law, parang dalawang demanda ang pwedeng mangyari.

ASC: That's one aspect that can really be struck down as unconstitutional. Kasi malinaw na hindi pwede ang double jeopardy, o 'yung ma-charge ka twice for the same crime, or be held accountable twice for one act. Except for certain exemptions na magkaiba ang crime, but this one is exactly the same.

'Yung libel law at 'yung dito pareho siya. That's why I'm saying na kapag tinanggal mo 'yung sa Anti Cyber Crime Law, pwede ka pa din namang kasuhan ng libel dahil may Libel Law.

Reporter: 'Yung sa other means of communication", covered by libel law?

ASC: That's why they put "and others". Or in layman's terms, etcetera. May sinasabi kasi na ejusdem generis that if there is an enumeration, 'yung mga kapareho niya sa enumeration, kasama. So if I say "boy or girl", referring to tao, lahat na ng tao. Hindi mo pwedeng lagyan ng dog o cat. Kung 'yung dati ang gender sensitivity ay boy o girl lang, ngayon, may third na, halimbawa. Kasama pa din. Kasi ang narration niya ay tao. Hindi mo pwedeng lagyan ng dog o cat.

So when they say "other means of publication", hindi naman nila alam na maiimbento ang telegram, ang TV, o ang internet. We don't know what's next after Facebook and Twitter, but again, some judges don't like that. Some judges say that in criminal law, strict ang interpretation mo. Kaya kapag hindi nakalagay doon specifically, hindi siya kasama.

Pero halimbawa, ako, tinext ko sa sarili ko "magnanakaw si ganito" tapos pinakita ko sa inyong lahat. Malamang mala-libel 'yon. Kahit sabihin mong text naman 'yon. Wala namang sinabing "text" doon sa batas, eh. But this is still publication kasi publication means inilalabas mo, hindi siya private na usapan.

Reporter: Anong mga parte ang kailangan i-amend?

Marami pati yung Takedown Clause, gaya nga ng sabi ni Professor Disini. Kasi kahit na tanggalin mo yung libel, ang isa pang issue ay ang freedom of expression. If the DOJ can act as justice and prosecutor at the same time, the old system is still much safer. If you want to have prior restraint, you go to court.

Reporter: Pinasusupend nga ni Sen. Angara yung implementation nitong batas...

Because the justice secretary is not authorized to suspend it. But maybe a joint resolution by Congress can affect the effectivity. In the past, Congress has interpreted joint resolutions to halt laws. If you pass a joint resolution saying that some clauses would be suspended, then it can be possible.

But remember, some of the authors were defending it at the start. However, when they saw the outrage of the people and the media, they are suddenly changing their minds.

Reporter: can President still veto?

Yung veto kasi may time lang. Kapag hindi mo vineto or pina-expire mo into law, pareho lang yun.

Reporter: Yung libel pwede bang i-veto?

Yes, he can veto any part of the law if it's an appropriation bill - he can veto line by line. But if it's not, then he has to veto the whole bill.

Nakita ko yung ibang amendments, its just one line. So if you veto that, you veto the whole bill.

Reporter: Paano yun, yung amendment...After that babalik sa presidente?

Yes, for his approval or veto. Or if he doesn't act upon it within a certain number of days, until he signs it.

News Latest News Feed