Miyerkules, Nobyembre 14, 2012
It's judgment day in Criminal Law
Tomorrow we will learn our fate as to whether we passed or failed in Criminal Law I. The wait is killing me and I might not be able to sleep tonight ahhhhh!
Lunes, Nobyembre 12, 2012
TV SHOW REVIEW: The Walking Dead S03E05
What an exciting episode! After last weeks shocking finale, what with the death of T-bone and Lori, the stress and strain of the entire ordeal seems to be finally catching up with Rick, who seems to be be finally losing his grip. This is entirely understandable, he did not have a good last encounter with Lori, and although there is in me something that tells me Laurie may still be around, not necessarily of the human kind though.
Carl will definitely emerge as the leader of the Pack. Andrea will regret her decision to stay behind. The Governor is keeping the people in Woodbury only because he wants to find a cure for Penny, his daughter. Michonne will probably be back to rescue Andrea. And mmm, the new member of the group will most probably be named Sofia.
Carl will definitely emerge as the leader of the Pack. Andrea will regret her decision to stay behind. The Governor is keeping the people in Woodbury only because he wants to find a cure for Penny, his daughter. Michonne will probably be back to rescue Andrea. And mmm, the new member of the group will most probably be named Sofia.
Linggo, Nobyembre 11, 2012
Is man free?
On a speech last October 29, 2012 at the Bon Mot Book Club, which I was privy to watch on Youtube, Sam Harris argued that free will is an illusion, man is not really free as he is governed by uncontrollable variables like chemicals, genes, upbringing and life experiences.
According to Sam Harris, there is no evidence for free will. He cited for example the case for serial killers, whose behavior to kill people is basically beyond their control as they are determined by their genes. They have the so-called "sociopathic soul." And they really have no choice but to kill people as it is programmed in their genes that they will be so. Harris cited as an example Charles Whitman who in 1966 killed his wife and mother plus 13 other people at the University of Texas and wounding 33 others. An autopsy later revealed that a glioblastoma was pressing upon his amygdala, the seat of passions and emotions. Harris cited the case of Whitman as a clear example that free will is an illusion, since Whitman's actions were controlled by the tumor. Whitman's suicide letter also revealed that he could not understand his actions lately, admitting that he was a reasonably intelligent person but has recently been consumed by irrational thoughts that he could not understand.
Brain science is a complicated endeavor and it is frankly, like the other sciences, a continuing saga into the unknown. However, to suggest that all who have tumors in the brain are somehow driven to kill is simply preposterous. There have been serial killers who have no brain tumor, although science tells us that there is a particular physiologic characteristics of the serial killer brain - still, much research has still to be done with regards to the matter. Indeed, there could be a possibility that even those who have never killed their entire lives might share a physiologic brain similarity with serial killers.
Harris also said we cannot control our thoughts as they just appear in our consciousness. He further asserts that we cannot control our thoughts until we become aware of them - so hence the absence of free will. He says: "Thoughts just emerge in consciousness... and if you become aware only of your thoughts until they arrive at you, where is freedom of will?"
Our thoughts are complex interactions of chemical processes, I give to that. It is true that we cannot always control what we think, but some Buddhist monks and yogi practitioners apparently can control their body temperatures. Also, thoughts are mental processes that are affected not only by the present, by chemical processes currently undergoing in the brain, but also memories and external conditions. There are some people who have remarkable powers of concentration that they can block other stimuli to focus only on a singular thought. We can also decide to think only about certain things, topics and persons - and some people, like Buddhist monks and Hindu Sadhu's (Hindu holy men), can actually sustain doing nothing but meditating over years.
He adds, "You cannot honestly take credit for you unconscious mental life." I agree, we cannot take credit for the unconscious mental life, it is something we cannot control in most respects, as they are one side of the human psyche, but constant reflection, meditation and even analysis on them will enable us to control how we respond to things that trigger them to the conscious.
Harris also says: "You have voices in your head that says things... it says things that are completely unconstrained at times...." This true, the human mind is a veritable forest of mysteries. Thoughts just pop in and out, most we cannot control, but that is part of the human experience, we cannot control the internal processes of our body as if it were the case, man as a creature will become extinct. Harris cited for example the production of RBC's as being beyond the conscious control of man. That is part of the evolutionary cycle, if breathing for example is dependent upon memory, the mental toll of constantly remembering it would be a strain on the evolutionary viability of man. Just as animals of the lower kind do not consciously control their breathing cycles - although during hibernating animals can condition the body to lower heart rate and metabolic processes, they do so unconsciously.
Free will is part of the human experience simply because Man can choose to be who he wants to be, how he wants to be. If we go back to the existentialist philosophers of the 20th century like Jean-Paul Sartre, man is free because he is "thrown" into the world and he has no choice but to choose.
While it is true that hormones and chemical processes affects the thinking processes of man and that the physiologic integrity of the different cellular structures of the body determines man's thinking processes, in the end, Man still has the ultimate power to succumb to such inclinations or not.
Charles Whitman might have been affected by the tumor pressing on his amygdala, but not alll who have brain tumors become serial killers, just as most serial killers have no brain tumors. It is also to be noted that many people who do have brain tumors turn up to leave normal, fulfilling lives.
Man is an interplay of not just chemical, biological, genetic and environmental factors, all of which exert on man's thoughts and on his ability to discern. He has free will because he can choose to believe he is free - that is its mystery.
According to Sam Harris, there is no evidence for free will. He cited for example the case for serial killers, whose behavior to kill people is basically beyond their control as they are determined by their genes. They have the so-called "sociopathic soul." And they really have no choice but to kill people as it is programmed in their genes that they will be so. Harris cited as an example Charles Whitman who in 1966 killed his wife and mother plus 13 other people at the University of Texas and wounding 33 others. An autopsy later revealed that a glioblastoma was pressing upon his amygdala, the seat of passions and emotions. Harris cited the case of Whitman as a clear example that free will is an illusion, since Whitman's actions were controlled by the tumor. Whitman's suicide letter also revealed that he could not understand his actions lately, admitting that he was a reasonably intelligent person but has recently been consumed by irrational thoughts that he could not understand.
Brain science is a complicated endeavor and it is frankly, like the other sciences, a continuing saga into the unknown. However, to suggest that all who have tumors in the brain are somehow driven to kill is simply preposterous. There have been serial killers who have no brain tumor, although science tells us that there is a particular physiologic characteristics of the serial killer brain - still, much research has still to be done with regards to the matter. Indeed, there could be a possibility that even those who have never killed their entire lives might share a physiologic brain similarity with serial killers.
Harris also said we cannot control our thoughts as they just appear in our consciousness. He further asserts that we cannot control our thoughts until we become aware of them - so hence the absence of free will. He says: "Thoughts just emerge in consciousness... and if you become aware only of your thoughts until they arrive at you, where is freedom of will?"
Our thoughts are complex interactions of chemical processes, I give to that. It is true that we cannot always control what we think, but some Buddhist monks and yogi practitioners apparently can control their body temperatures. Also, thoughts are mental processes that are affected not only by the present, by chemical processes currently undergoing in the brain, but also memories and external conditions. There are some people who have remarkable powers of concentration that they can block other stimuli to focus only on a singular thought. We can also decide to think only about certain things, topics and persons - and some people, like Buddhist monks and Hindu Sadhu's (Hindu holy men), can actually sustain doing nothing but meditating over years.
He adds, "You cannot honestly take credit for you unconscious mental life." I agree, we cannot take credit for the unconscious mental life, it is something we cannot control in most respects, as they are one side of the human psyche, but constant reflection, meditation and even analysis on them will enable us to control how we respond to things that trigger them to the conscious.
Harris also says: "You have voices in your head that says things... it says things that are completely unconstrained at times...." This true, the human mind is a veritable forest of mysteries. Thoughts just pop in and out, most we cannot control, but that is part of the human experience, we cannot control the internal processes of our body as if it were the case, man as a creature will become extinct. Harris cited for example the production of RBC's as being beyond the conscious control of man. That is part of the evolutionary cycle, if breathing for example is dependent upon memory, the mental toll of constantly remembering it would be a strain on the evolutionary viability of man. Just as animals of the lower kind do not consciously control their breathing cycles - although during hibernating animals can condition the body to lower heart rate and metabolic processes, they do so unconsciously.
Free will is part of the human experience simply because Man can choose to be who he wants to be, how he wants to be. If we go back to the existentialist philosophers of the 20th century like Jean-Paul Sartre, man is free because he is "thrown" into the world and he has no choice but to choose.
While it is true that hormones and chemical processes affects the thinking processes of man and that the physiologic integrity of the different cellular structures of the body determines man's thinking processes, in the end, Man still has the ultimate power to succumb to such inclinations or not.
Charles Whitman might have been affected by the tumor pressing on his amygdala, but not alll who have brain tumors become serial killers, just as most serial killers have no brain tumors. It is also to be noted that many people who do have brain tumors turn up to leave normal, fulfilling lives.
Man is an interplay of not just chemical, biological, genetic and environmental factors, all of which exert on man's thoughts and on his ability to discern. He has free will because he can choose to believe he is free - that is its mystery.
Sabado, Nobyembre 10, 2012
Beggar Diplomacy of the Philippines
Newly re-elected U.S. President Barack Obama will be embarking on a Southeast Asian Tour come Nov. 17-20, 2012 and already Cagayan de Oro Rep. Rufus Rodriguez was lamenting the fact that the Philippines will not be part of Obama's itinerary. Rep. Rodriguez, in an article published in inquirer.net, also added that the visit to the country would have been a positive signal for Obama's support for the Philippines in its dispute with China over the Scarborough Shoal.
This reaction of Rep. Rodriguez is just a clear manifestation of the country's perpetual unhealthy dependence on America, which has never really given much thought as to how the Philippines will actually do in foreign affairs. Our political leaders continued beggar diplomacy from armaments to everything else speaks of our still strong colonial mentality that has effectively made the Philippines a gnat in international affairs - constantly rediculed for its policies and never respected in its endeavours.
It is time the Filipino people rise up to the realities of the 21st century and elect political leaders who have a sense of nationalism and patriotism, who hold a strong vision for a Philippines that is strong, independent, progressive and free, a country who respects individual rights, provides opportunities for its citizens to grow and prosper and most of all, who inspires the populace to believe in themselves.
This reaction of Rep. Rodriguez is just a clear manifestation of the country's perpetual unhealthy dependence on America, which has never really given much thought as to how the Philippines will actually do in foreign affairs. Our political leaders continued beggar diplomacy from armaments to everything else speaks of our still strong colonial mentality that has effectively made the Philippines a gnat in international affairs - constantly rediculed for its policies and never respected in its endeavours.
It is time the Filipino people rise up to the realities of the 21st century and elect political leaders who have a sense of nationalism and patriotism, who hold a strong vision for a Philippines that is strong, independent, progressive and free, a country who respects individual rights, provides opportunities for its citizens to grow and prosper and most of all, who inspires the populace to believe in themselves.
Biyernes, Nobyembre 9, 2012
Why RA 10175 Should Be Abrogated
There has been a lot of brouhaha regarding the introduction of RA 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Indeed, the law was crafted so fast, I doubt if there was even any meaningful consultation with various groups such as the internet community, human rights groups, netizens through various social media sites, NGO's and the like. It is no surprising therefore that even before it became effective last October 3, 2012, the online community in the Philippines was aghast with its patently obvious censoring implications. No less than seven petitions were filed in the Philippine Supreme Court to have the law declared unconstitutional or suspended. Within a few days after it became effective, the Supreme Court issued a 160-day restraining order suspending its implementation. Presumably, according to various media pundits, to give time to the usually rubber stamp congress to make the "necessary" changes.
Sa aking opinyon, ang batas na ito ay hindi lamang dapat ma-suspendi, ito ay dapat itakwil dahil ang mga probisyon nito ay hindi lamang labag sa mga itinatakdang karapatang nakalaan sa Saligang-batas ng 1987, kundi maaaring gamitin bilang isang instrumento para mapatahimik ang malayang talastasan ng mga ideya at opinyon. Puno ng mga butas ang batas na ito na walang dudang magbibigay ng pagkakataon para sa mga makapangyarihang tao sa Pilipinas para masiguro na ang mga magpapahayag ng mga opinyong hindi sang-ayon sa kanilang mga posisyon ay kanilang masasakal. Ito ay hindi lamang labag sa mga karapatang nakatalaga sa Bill of Rights ng saligang-batas ng 1987.
There are many objectionable provisions of RA 10175 and I will deal extensively with only some of them which, as a regular internet user, could affect the free and unfettered flow of information through the internet. The free flow of information is critical in a functioning democracy as it serves as a check and balance against the abuse and misuse of public power and ensures that the reigns of government do not become the absolute domain of our political dynasties - a sorry feature of Philippine democracy.
Let me begin.
Section 4 (3) (c) (1) "Cybersex - The willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favor or consideration."
OBJECTION: In statutory construction, there is a principle called verba legis. This principle essentially means the "plain-meaning rule." That is, the words in a statute should be interpreted in its simplest possible meaning. When there is no ambiguity, the provision of law should be taken to mean what it says it means.
Using the verba legis principle, it is clear from the provisions of Sec. 4 (3)(c)(1) that if I willfully make a sex video alone or with someone, I am technically criminally liable under said provision. The last phrase in said provision somewhat qualifies the offense as that which is "for favor or consideration." The phrase "for favor or consideration" is open for interpretation, does that only refer to sexual videos done for money? What is the nits and bounds of the terms "favor or consideration"?
Indeed, in the milieu in which we are now, the increased technicalization and computerization of almost all facets and aspects of contemporary life suggests that favors or considerations go beyond the mere exhange of money. It could include recognition, which in the internet world, at the right circumstances, can eventually become monetized. Example, if a blogger attaches a sexually explicit video of himself on his blog, there is almost always a high likelihood that traffic to such blog will increase, the resulting increase in traffic, if sustained over a period of weeks and months, will attract attention, some of which will be from advertisers, who will most likely offer to pay considerable amounts of money to advertise in such blog. Although there might be no initial intent to gain favor or consideration, the subsequent ad offers might be too good to pass. And so if such blogger then accepts such offers, under the provisions of aforesaid law, he will now be subject to the definition outlined in Sec. 4 (3)(c)(1). This is plainly the state interfering in the personal and private activity of an individual. This seemingly innocuous event can open windows to the religious right (of which there are many in the Philippines - think the Catholic Church, chameleonic politicos) to also call for the regulation of internet activity to control so-called "immoral" pictures, videos, stories and the like.
Kung makikita natin, sa isang probisyon pa lamang ay delikado na ang lagay ng kalayaang magpahayag ng sariling mga saloobin at opinyon ang sambayanang Filipino. Ang probisyong ito pa lang ay sapat na para sakalin ng mga makapangyarihan, mapera, at maimpluwensiya ang kalayaang maglimbag. Sa probisyong ito, mayuyurakan ang malayang pagdaloy ng impormasyon, ideya at katotohanan, higit sa lahat, mahihigpitan din ang sagradong karapatang maibahagi at maipahayag ang sarili.
Section 5 (a) "Aiding or abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime - Any person who willfully abets or aids in the commission of any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable."
OBJECTION: This provision is a death knell to the social media experience. With the extensive popularity of Facebook in the Philippines, many Filipinos could technically become criminals. How will this affect free expression in the social media world?
First and foremost, if someone "LIKES" something on Facebook, he could potentially be an accessory to the crime simply because, as Sec. 5 (a) stipulates, he is already "willfully abetting or aiding in the commission of the crime." HOW? Because as everyone who uses Facebook knows, when someone clicks a "Like" button on Facebook, such activity is immediately reflected in the "Newsfeed" portion located on the upper right corner of the Facebook page of ALL friends of the one making the click (of course, depending on how the privacy settings of the users' account is set-up, the number of persons who will be privy to such information will vary), if that friend in turn clicks the "Like" button on said posting, it will appear on such friends' friends "Newsfeed" and so on and so forth. In short, you will spread the information. Isn't that abetting or aiding already? And if it is, then all those who clicked on the post will be held liable as by definition, they have already abetted and aided in the commission of the crime by spreading such information.
Sa madaling salita, hindi totoo ang palabas ng ilang mga abogado at tagapagtanggol ng RA 10175 na ang mga may-akda lamang ng mga "libelous comments" ang posibleng mapanagot. Iginigiit din ng mga nasabing tao na ang simpleng pag-like ng isang komento sa Facebook ay hindi "libelous" basta hindi sila ang nagsulat nito.
Makikita natin sa ayos ng mga salita sa Sec. 5 (a) na hindi ito totoo. Sa katunayan, simple, klaro at walang kadudaduda ang mga salita sa nasabing probisyon, ang sinumang tumulong sa paggawa ng Cybercrime ay mananagot. Kung mag-like ka sa isang post sa Facebook, alam nating ito ay umaabot sa mas marami pang tao, at dahil ito ay umaabot sa mas maraming tao, mas marami ang makakaalam sa nasabing post, at kapag nag-like naman ang mga taong ito, mas dadami pa ang makakaalam nito dahil makikita ito sa mga "Newsfeed" ng kanilang mga kaibigan sa Facebook. Hindi ba abetting and aiding na ito?
Section 5 (b) "Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime - Any person who willfully attempts to commit any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable."
OBJECTION: RA 10175 curiously does not really define what the scope of the word "attempt." Since under the provisions of RA 10175 Sec. 6 and 7 clearly indicates that aforesaid statute uses the RPC as a supplemental law, it is reasonable to assume, under the principle of in pari materia, that the two laws should be construed to support each other. Hence, the definition of "attempt" in RA 10175 must be the same as those defined under Art. 6 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, in which an attempted felony is one in which: (1) The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts; (2) The offender does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony; and (3) The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to a cause or accident other than the offender's own spontaneous desistance.
The conundrum therefore arises, using the example explained in Sec. 4, if there is such a thing as "attempted" in the realm of social media. Again, the example in the preceding section will be used, if one clicks "Like" on Facebook, as stated previously, such information is displayed in real-time on the "Newsfeed" of the account holders list of friends, the number of which will depend on the privacy settings, of those who are currently on-line. If however, one decides to "Unlike" said post, will it still be considered attempted? In such a scenario, those who are on-line when the "Like" button was clicked will have then seen such activity. However, those who are not online when such click was done will not be able to see them. In other words therefore, as defined in the provisions of Art. 6 of the RPC, is there really an "attempt" as contemplated by said provision when it comes to the social media experience? Indeed, when one clicks "Like" on Facebook, all acts of execution are already committed, even if you subsequently "Unlike" it later on, since those who are on-line when the "Like" button was clicked will have potentially seen it. Only those who were not on-line when said click was made will not be able to see such activity.
There is therefore a need to further scrutinize if there is really such a thing as "attempt," at least in the social media experience. Indeed, in the world of the internet, once something is posted on the web, it stays on the web forever, and so therefore how can an "attempt" be truly an attempt when applied to the social media experience.
Makikita natin na ang RA 10175 ay salat sa mga mahahalagang bagay na dapat pagtuunan ng pansin. Makikita na ang batas na ito ay hindi masyadong napag-aralan, napag-isipan at napag-usapan. Maraming mga kwestionableng probisyong naitala na mayroong malalim na implikasyon sa mga mahahalagang karapatang pantao ng bawat Filipino.
RA 10175 should not just be amended, as there are still many provisions which should be radically changed that the law itself becomes skelotonized as to render it essentially useless, it should be rejected, declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court as it violates Art. 3, Sec. 4 of the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution which states: "No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press..." and trashed to the dustbins of history as where it so rightfully belongs. It has no place in modern society, much less in a milieu that is increasingly information dependent, technically complex and socially more expressive of their rights.
Sa aking opinyon, ang batas na ito ay hindi lamang dapat ma-suspendi, ito ay dapat itakwil dahil ang mga probisyon nito ay hindi lamang labag sa mga itinatakdang karapatang nakalaan sa Saligang-batas ng 1987, kundi maaaring gamitin bilang isang instrumento para mapatahimik ang malayang talastasan ng mga ideya at opinyon. Puno ng mga butas ang batas na ito na walang dudang magbibigay ng pagkakataon para sa mga makapangyarihang tao sa Pilipinas para masiguro na ang mga magpapahayag ng mga opinyong hindi sang-ayon sa kanilang mga posisyon ay kanilang masasakal. Ito ay hindi lamang labag sa mga karapatang nakatalaga sa Bill of Rights ng saligang-batas ng 1987.
There are many objectionable provisions of RA 10175 and I will deal extensively with only some of them which, as a regular internet user, could affect the free and unfettered flow of information through the internet. The free flow of information is critical in a functioning democracy as it serves as a check and balance against the abuse and misuse of public power and ensures that the reigns of government do not become the absolute domain of our political dynasties - a sorry feature of Philippine democracy.
Let me begin.
Section 4 (3) (c) (1) "Cybersex - The willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favor or consideration."
OBJECTION: In statutory construction, there is a principle called verba legis. This principle essentially means the "plain-meaning rule." That is, the words in a statute should be interpreted in its simplest possible meaning. When there is no ambiguity, the provision of law should be taken to mean what it says it means.
Using the verba legis principle, it is clear from the provisions of Sec. 4 (3)(c)(1) that if I willfully make a sex video alone or with someone, I am technically criminally liable under said provision. The last phrase in said provision somewhat qualifies the offense as that which is "for favor or consideration." The phrase "for favor or consideration" is open for interpretation, does that only refer to sexual videos done for money? What is the nits and bounds of the terms "favor or consideration"?
Indeed, in the milieu in which we are now, the increased technicalization and computerization of almost all facets and aspects of contemporary life suggests that favors or considerations go beyond the mere exhange of money. It could include recognition, which in the internet world, at the right circumstances, can eventually become monetized. Example, if a blogger attaches a sexually explicit video of himself on his blog, there is almost always a high likelihood that traffic to such blog will increase, the resulting increase in traffic, if sustained over a period of weeks and months, will attract attention, some of which will be from advertisers, who will most likely offer to pay considerable amounts of money to advertise in such blog. Although there might be no initial intent to gain favor or consideration, the subsequent ad offers might be too good to pass. And so if such blogger then accepts such offers, under the provisions of aforesaid law, he will now be subject to the definition outlined in Sec. 4 (3)(c)(1). This is plainly the state interfering in the personal and private activity of an individual. This seemingly innocuous event can open windows to the religious right (of which there are many in the Philippines - think the Catholic Church, chameleonic politicos) to also call for the regulation of internet activity to control so-called "immoral" pictures, videos, stories and the like.
Kung makikita natin, sa isang probisyon pa lamang ay delikado na ang lagay ng kalayaang magpahayag ng sariling mga saloobin at opinyon ang sambayanang Filipino. Ang probisyong ito pa lang ay sapat na para sakalin ng mga makapangyarihan, mapera, at maimpluwensiya ang kalayaang maglimbag. Sa probisyong ito, mayuyurakan ang malayang pagdaloy ng impormasyon, ideya at katotohanan, higit sa lahat, mahihigpitan din ang sagradong karapatang maibahagi at maipahayag ang sarili.
Section 5 (a) "Aiding or abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime - Any person who willfully abets or aids in the commission of any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable."
OBJECTION: This provision is a death knell to the social media experience. With the extensive popularity of Facebook in the Philippines, many Filipinos could technically become criminals. How will this affect free expression in the social media world?
First and foremost, if someone "LIKES" something on Facebook, he could potentially be an accessory to the crime simply because, as Sec. 5 (a) stipulates, he is already "willfully abetting or aiding in the commission of the crime." HOW? Because as everyone who uses Facebook knows, when someone clicks a "Like" button on Facebook, such activity is immediately reflected in the "Newsfeed" portion located on the upper right corner of the Facebook page of ALL friends of the one making the click (of course, depending on how the privacy settings of the users' account is set-up, the number of persons who will be privy to such information will vary), if that friend in turn clicks the "Like" button on said posting, it will appear on such friends' friends "Newsfeed" and so on and so forth. In short, you will spread the information. Isn't that abetting or aiding already? And if it is, then all those who clicked on the post will be held liable as by definition, they have already abetted and aided in the commission of the crime by spreading such information.
Sa madaling salita, hindi totoo ang palabas ng ilang mga abogado at tagapagtanggol ng RA 10175 na ang mga may-akda lamang ng mga "libelous comments" ang posibleng mapanagot. Iginigiit din ng mga nasabing tao na ang simpleng pag-like ng isang komento sa Facebook ay hindi "libelous" basta hindi sila ang nagsulat nito.
Makikita natin sa ayos ng mga salita sa Sec. 5 (a) na hindi ito totoo. Sa katunayan, simple, klaro at walang kadudaduda ang mga salita sa nasabing probisyon, ang sinumang tumulong sa paggawa ng Cybercrime ay mananagot. Kung mag-like ka sa isang post sa Facebook, alam nating ito ay umaabot sa mas marami pang tao, at dahil ito ay umaabot sa mas maraming tao, mas marami ang makakaalam sa nasabing post, at kapag nag-like naman ang mga taong ito, mas dadami pa ang makakaalam nito dahil makikita ito sa mga "Newsfeed" ng kanilang mga kaibigan sa Facebook. Hindi ba abetting and aiding na ito?
Section 5 (b) "Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime - Any person who willfully attempts to commit any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable."
OBJECTION: RA 10175 curiously does not really define what the scope of the word "attempt." Since under the provisions of RA 10175 Sec. 6 and 7 clearly indicates that aforesaid statute uses the RPC as a supplemental law, it is reasonable to assume, under the principle of in pari materia, that the two laws should be construed to support each other. Hence, the definition of "attempt" in RA 10175 must be the same as those defined under Art. 6 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, in which an attempted felony is one in which: (1) The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts; (2) The offender does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony; and (3) The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to a cause or accident other than the offender's own spontaneous desistance.
The conundrum therefore arises, using the example explained in Sec. 4, if there is such a thing as "attempted" in the realm of social media. Again, the example in the preceding section will be used, if one clicks "Like" on Facebook, as stated previously, such information is displayed in real-time on the "Newsfeed" of the account holders list of friends, the number of which will depend on the privacy settings, of those who are currently on-line. If however, one decides to "Unlike" said post, will it still be considered attempted? In such a scenario, those who are on-line when the "Like" button was clicked will have then seen such activity. However, those who are not online when such click was done will not be able to see them. In other words therefore, as defined in the provisions of Art. 6 of the RPC, is there really an "attempt" as contemplated by said provision when it comes to the social media experience? Indeed, when one clicks "Like" on Facebook, all acts of execution are already committed, even if you subsequently "Unlike" it later on, since those who are on-line when the "Like" button was clicked will have potentially seen it. Only those who were not on-line when said click was made will not be able to see such activity.
There is therefore a need to further scrutinize if there is really such a thing as "attempt," at least in the social media experience. Indeed, in the world of the internet, once something is posted on the web, it stays on the web forever, and so therefore how can an "attempt" be truly an attempt when applied to the social media experience.
Section 6. "All crimes defined and
penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed
by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies
shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act. Provided,
That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that
provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the
case may be."
Section 7. "Liability under
Other Laws. – A prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to
any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
or special laws."
OBJECTION: RA 10175 as manifested by Sec. 6 is clearly interlinked with the RPC. This is even more clear by the provisions of Sec. 7 of RA 10175. Sec. 7 of RA 10175 is very disturbing in the sense that in one line, it actually allows DOUBLE JEOPARDY to be committed. This is a clear violation of the provisions of Art. 3, Sec. 21of the 1987 Constitution which states: "No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act."
It is however clear from Sec. 7 of RA 10175, that a person who may be charged for libel who uses both print and the internet can be LEGALLY, however unconstitutionally, be prosecuted for the same offense, to wit: "...prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to
any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
or special laws."
Makikita natin na ang RA 10175 ay salat sa mga mahahalagang bagay na dapat pagtuunan ng pansin. Makikita na ang batas na ito ay hindi masyadong napag-aralan, napag-isipan at napag-usapan. Maraming mga kwestionableng probisyong naitala na mayroong malalim na implikasyon sa mga mahahalagang karapatang pantao ng bawat Filipino.
RA 10175 should not just be amended, as there are still many provisions which should be radically changed that the law itself becomes skelotonized as to render it essentially useless, it should be rejected, declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court as it violates Art. 3, Sec. 4 of the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution which states: "No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press..." and trashed to the dustbins of history as where it so rightfully belongs. It has no place in modern society, much less in a milieu that is increasingly information dependent, technically complex and socially more expressive of their rights.
Huwebes, Nobyembre 8, 2012
Secularizing Philippine Society: The RH Bill and why Philippine Society Needs It
I am getting tired and nauseous with the Catholic Church's constant interference in the secular affairs and concerns of the Philippines. The latest being the Church's rabid opposition to the passage of a crucial, life saving and socially-necessary piece of legislation - the Reproductive Health Bill.
The Church opposes it for the following reasons but is not limited to such:
1. The promotion of contraceptive use promotes immorality.
2. The promotion of contraceptive use does not solve poverty.
There are many reasons why the Church opposes the RH Bill but I will only tackle the two aforesaid reasons, which in my opinion, shows how the church is essentially out of touch and delusional about what a republic like the Philippines should be and how scientific studies show otherwise.
First, on the question as to the promotion of immorality or the inducement to immorality of the use of contraceptives escapes any reasonable thinking human beings' sense of critical thinking. There has been no documented study that the use of contraceptives actually promotes immorality. And I doubt if the church even remotely conducted such study. There is simply no connection between contraceptive use and how it shapes morality, besides, morality is religiously, socially, culturally and zeitgeistically determined. What has been moral in 15th Century Medieval Europe is not necessarily considered moral nowadays. Does modern society for example, still condone and sanction the burning of those suspected of being witches?
Second, on the question as to contraceptive use not solving poverty. The use of contraceptives was never intended to solve poverty, although controlling family size through the use of contraceptives can help a couple maintain a family that they are financially, physically, and medically ready to carry through. A couple who can barely support themselves need contraceptives to ensure that they can create a family that will ensure a comfortable and secure future for themselves and their children.
The Church, in its unreasonable, unscientific, and socially detached chronic opposition to something Philippine society desperately needs now, is indeed a force of enslavement, immorality and stupidity. Indeed, the Filipino people should now, more than ever, think seriously why we as a society have given this institution, who by the way, has historically caused untold suffering to the Filipino masses by colluding with the oppressive powers that have always been a constant feature of the Filipino experience to continue to rule and hold sway over the life of our republic.
Secularize Philippine society, let us purge the influence of religion and institutionalized delusional beliefs from the fabric of public life!
The Church opposes it for the following reasons but is not limited to such:
1. The promotion of contraceptive use promotes immorality.
2. The promotion of contraceptive use does not solve poverty.
There are many reasons why the Church opposes the RH Bill but I will only tackle the two aforesaid reasons, which in my opinion, shows how the church is essentially out of touch and delusional about what a republic like the Philippines should be and how scientific studies show otherwise.
First, on the question as to the promotion of immorality or the inducement to immorality of the use of contraceptives escapes any reasonable thinking human beings' sense of critical thinking. There has been no documented study that the use of contraceptives actually promotes immorality. And I doubt if the church even remotely conducted such study. There is simply no connection between contraceptive use and how it shapes morality, besides, morality is religiously, socially, culturally and zeitgeistically determined. What has been moral in 15th Century Medieval Europe is not necessarily considered moral nowadays. Does modern society for example, still condone and sanction the burning of those suspected of being witches?
Second, on the question as to contraceptive use not solving poverty. The use of contraceptives was never intended to solve poverty, although controlling family size through the use of contraceptives can help a couple maintain a family that they are financially, physically, and medically ready to carry through. A couple who can barely support themselves need contraceptives to ensure that they can create a family that will ensure a comfortable and secure future for themselves and their children.
The Church, in its unreasonable, unscientific, and socially detached chronic opposition to something Philippine society desperately needs now, is indeed a force of enslavement, immorality and stupidity. Indeed, the Filipino people should now, more than ever, think seriously why we as a society have given this institution, who by the way, has historically caused untold suffering to the Filipino masses by colluding with the oppressive powers that have always been a constant feature of the Filipino experience to continue to rule and hold sway over the life of our republic.
Secularize Philippine society, let us purge the influence of religion and institutionalized delusional beliefs from the fabric of public life!
Mag-subscribe sa:
Mga Post (Atom)