The 15th Petition for a TRO - Netizens vs. the Cybercrime Prevention Act

Today, the Philippine Internet Freedom  Alliance (PIFA.ph) filed a petition at the Supreme Court (SC) for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Below is an outline of the substantive arguments in the Petition:

I. RA 10175 violates the right to privacy and due process (Sec 16, 19).
II. RA 10175 violates the right to equal protection (Sec 6, Sec 19).
III. RA 10175 violates the right to free speech (Sec 19, Sec 4(c)).
IV. RA 10175 violates jus cogens norms of international law (Sec 4(c)).
V. RA 10175 is an ex post facto law.
VI. RA 10175 imposes cruel and unusual punishment.

See the full petition below:

Petitioners are : PHILIPPINE INTERNET FREEDOM ALLIANCE, composed of DAKILA-PHILIPPINE COLLECTIVE FOR MODERN HEROISM, represented by Leni Velasco, PARTIDO LAKAS NG MASA, represented by Cesar S. Melencio, FRANCIS EUSTON R. ACERO, MARLON ANTHONY ROMASANTA TONSON, TEODORO A. CASIÑO, NOEMI LARDIZABAL-DADO, IMELDA MORALES, JAMES MATTHEW B. MIRAFLOR, JUAN G.M. RAGRAGIO, MARIA FATIMA A. VILLENA, MEDARDO M. MANRIQUE, JR., LAUREN DADO, MARCO VITTORIA TOBIAS SUMAYAO, IRENE CHIA, ERASTUS NOEL T. DELIZO, CRISTINA SARAH E. OSORIO, ROMEO FACTOLERIN, NAOMI L. TUPAS, KENNETH KENG, ANA ALEXANDRA C. CASTRO

Petition

In the Philippines, the primacy and high esteem accorded freedom of expression is a fundamental postulate of our constitutional system. This right was elevated to constitutional status in the 1935, the 1973 and the 1987 Constitutions, reflecting our own lesson of history, both political and legal, that freedom of speech is an indispensable condition for nearly every other form of freedom. Moreover, our history shows that the struggle to protect the freedom of speech, expression and the press was, at bottom, the struggle for the indispensable preconditions for the exercise of other freedoms. For it is only when the people have unbridled access to information and the press that they will be capable of rendering enlightened judgments. In the oft-quoted words of Thomas Jefferson, we cannot both be free and ignorant.

- Mr. Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, speaking for the Court en banc, in Chavez v. Gonzales and National Telecommunications Commission, G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008.

Pilipinas Kay Ganda and the Culture of Plagiarism: An Acceptable National Instinct?

The photo was taken here. Created by Spanky Hizon.

The headline story today of Inquirer is clear, President Aquino wants the Department of Tourism to get another logo and branding for its promotion project. The criticism over the "Pilipinas Kay Ganda" seems to be too hot for them to handle, after taking flak from solons, including Sen. Miriam Santiago who was not amused.

Frankly, I can't see how WOW Philippines cannot sell. It already did, albeit not as effective as the tourism strategy of our neighbors Indonesia (beach-wise Boracay is so much better than Bali) and Malaysia, which tourism industry are reaping billions. But that is a topic for another day.

And there is another thing, the more fundamental question of whether we should really be promoting tourism industry this much if it is actually found to be ecologically-destructive (even Ecotourism is not immune to this) and damaging and/or demeaning of our indigenous cultures and national identity. This, when we should really be focusing on more sustainable and robust sources of economic development, like industrialization. But again, that is another topic for another day.

But I want to focus on one issue, and it is the claim that Pilipinas Kay Ganda logo is a product of plagiarism. Blogger Spanky Hizon revealed what is to be a lethal monkey-wrench to the DOT's project - by putting it side-by-side with Poland's "Polska" tourism logo and saying that the similarities are simply, too hard to ignore. Someone in the DOT (or whoever they commissioned) must have been a great Google fan.

But is it just a mere slip-up on the part of DOT? I say, that it is more than that. It is, in fact, related to recent controversy hounding the Philippine Supreme Court  and the claims that the Supreme Court, by protecting itself from accusations that it plagiarized a legal text and censoring the UP College of Law who fought against it, may have just legalized plagiarism "without malicious intent".

For that matter, the question then becomes: is the culture of plagiarism really, morally detestable? What are the conditions with which it becomes permissible and even necessary?