May isang ahensiya ng gobyerno na naglabas ng patakaran na bawal kunan ng larawan at video ang kanilang mga tauhan habang naka-duty dahil ito daw ay slander, cyberbullying, at labag sa data privacy law”
Pag-usapan natin ang mga batas na ini-invoke sa policy na ‘yan.
Una- Slander.
Ang slander ay oral defamation o paninira gamit ang salita- at pinaparusahan ito ng Revised Penal Code.
Ang kailangang patunayan sa ganitong kaso:
- a) may paninira;
- b) gamit ang salita;
- c) ginawa publicly;
- d) maliciously;
- e) laban sa identified na tao; at
- f) may resultang dishonor, discredit o contempt sa siniraan.
Kailangang mapatunayan na ang sinasabing paninira, ginawa na may malisyosong intensyon.
Ibig sabihin, walang magandang intensyon o justifiable motive sa paggawa, ang gusto lang- manakit ng kapwa.
Kung ang ginagawa ay sincere na kritisismo o pag-call out sa ‘di maayos na trabaho ng public officials, hindi naman masasabing malisyoso ‘yan.
Pangalawa- Cyber-Bullying.
Alam niyo, ang tinatawag na cyber-bullying sa batas ay naka-base sa Anti-Bullying Act . Ang sakop ng batas na ito- mga estudyante at kabataan lang!
Kaya malabo talagang gamitin ang “cyberbullying” ng mga matatandang may responsibilidad na pagsilbihan ang publiko.
Kung ang ibig sabihin naman nila ay cyber libel, pareho sa slander- kailangang patunayan na may malisyosong intensyon sa ginawa.
Sa slander at cyber libel, naipaliwanag na rin ng Supreme Court na iba ang aplikasyon public officials ang pinag-uusapan.
Dahil sa 1987 Constitution- basic ang proteksyon sa freedom of speech – lalo na para mag-komento sa trabaho ng public officials.
Ang basehan ng kapangyarihan nila- tiwala natin at sa pagsisilbi, dapat lagi silang accountable sa atin:
Article III
Bill of Rights
Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
Article III, Bill of Rights
Article XI
Accountability of Public Officers
Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.
Article XI, Accountability of Public Officers
Kaya ang libel at slander- hindi basta-basta pwedeng gamitin ng public officials para patahimikin ang taumbayan. Ayon sa Supreme Court:
“regard must always be made to the guarantees provided by our Constitution. Criminal prosecutions for libel must undergo the rigorous and exacting standard of ensuring that they do not violate the right to free expression.
…Our libel laws must not be broadly construed as to deter comments on public affairs and the conduct of public officials. Courts must examine libel cases involving a public officer’s exercise of official functions within the context of these constitutional guarantees.”
Supreme Court
Napaka-importante ng boses natin para masigurong maayos ang pagpapatakbo ng gobyerno. Ayon sa Supreme Court, kung public official ka- hindi ka dapat hindi balat-sibuyas!
At responsibilidad ng bawat Pilipino na labanan ang mga maling ginagawa ng mga nasa posisyon:
“The interest of society and the maintenance of good government demand a full discussion of public affairs. Complete liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation; the wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear conscience.
A public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon his official acts. Only thus can the intelligence and dignity of the individual be exalted. Of course, criticism does not authorized defamation. Nevertheless, as the individual is less than the State, so must expected criticism be born for the common good. Rising superior to any official, or set of officials, to the Chief Executive, to the Legislature, to the Judiciary — to any or all the agencies of Government — public opinion should be the constant source of liberty and democracy.
xxx
The sword of Damocles in the hands of a judge does not hang suspended over the individual who dares to assert his prerogative as a citizen and to stand up bravely before any official. On the contrary, it is a duty which every one owes to society or to the State to assist in the investigation of any alleged misconduct. It is further the duty of all know of any official dereliction on the part of a magistrate or the wrongful act of any public officer to bring the facts to the notice of those whose duty it is to inquire into and punish them. In the words of Mr. Justice Gayner, who contributed so largely to the law of libel. ‘The people are not obliged to speak of the conduct of their officials in whispers or with bated breath in a free government, but only in a despotism.’
xxx
Public policy, the welfare of society, and the orderly administration of government have demanded protection for public opinion.”
Supreme Court
Pangatlo- violation ng Data Privacy Act.
Ang Data Privacy Act, naglilimita sa paggamit ng personal information ng iba.
Pero malinaw sa batas- hindi ito applicable sa personal information related sa trabaho ng public officials.
“This Act does not apply to the following:
- (a) Information about any individual who is or was an officer or employee of a government institution that relates to the position or functions of the individual, including:
- The fact that the individual is or was an officer or employee of the government institution;
- The title, business address and office telephone number of the individual;
- The classification, salary range and responsibilities of the position held by the individual; and
- The name of the individual on a document prepared by the individual in the course of employment with the government.
- (b) Information about an individual who is or was performing service under contract for a government institution that relates to the services performed, including the terms of the contract, and the name of the individual given in the course of the performance of those services.”
Hindi pwedeng magtago ang public officials sa likod ng Data Privacy Act, lalo na kung ang impormasyon ay related sa trabaho nila.
Kaya naman sa palagay ko, walang basehan sa mga batas na ito para ipatupad ang no photos and video policy sa ahensya ng gobyerno.