Deal or No Deal?

: Contemporary Policy Landscape in the Philippines The policy process here in the Philippines has been usually noted as a colorful one, some say even a circus knowing the variety of individuals, groups and interests participating in it. For the past few years, a number of key policy issues have been debated from the halls of Congress, to the streets, and even at the internet. Issues such as land reform, generic medicines, Value-Added Tax, mining, oil deregulation and reproductive health are a few of those that is relevant to our everyday experiences as Filipinos and still being debated today. In this light, I would like to highlight emerging policy issues that has been featured on the news and in everyday conversations, from the neighboorhood tindahan to the virtual halls of cyberspace. These issues are chosen not just of its relevance to today's experience but with the suggestions of different interests in addressing them. Cyberlibel: Virtual Martial Law? A week before the 40th anniversary of Martial Law, President Aquino finally signed the Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175), a law designed to codify crimes regarding the use of technology and to address important issues in the Information Technology (IT) sector. A variety of topics have been touched by the law, including cybersex, prostitution, hacking, domain squatting, among others. It seems that netizens have no contention with the law except for one specific clause: the one pertaining to libel. In a span of minutes, internet users showed their disappointment, much more anger with the legislators who crafted the bill, alleging that it's an infringment of constitutionally-protected rights, such as freedom of speech. Others worried about its effect to citizen-initiated movements and media outfits who now rely heavier on social media to relay information or spark discussion about important social issues. The specific provision in question (Section 4c) states that: (4) Libel. The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future. Libel has been a punishable offense in the Philippines since the passage of the original Penal Code in 1928. Libel was defined by the law, written in Article 353 as: ...public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

Persons found guilty in violation may be slapped with prison correctional and a fine ranging up to P2,000. Libel, in this sense, refers to any defamatory statement published with an intentional to sow malice upon a person's character. Publications may include print media, broadcasting, and in this case, blog posts, online news articles and even Facebook posts and tweets. Online experts have pointed out the fault of the Cyberlibel clause for what it seems to be broad definition of libel, as "committed using computer systems". In this case, there's a sense of confusion on what could be considered as libel in the internet, especially on social media sites where discussions on a range of topics are free-wheeling. There is also a difficulty in determining malice, since the boundaries of public and private conversations in the internet are most of the time blurred. It was pointed out that the clause referring to cyberlibel was not part of the original bill introduced in the Senate and House of Representatives. Senator Vicente "Tito" Sotto III, a well-known social conservative, was pinpointed as the one who introduced the amendment on its second reading. Upon his explanation that he just want to clarify the definition of libel according to its present context, the bill's main author, Sen. Edgardo Angara, nodded and included his amendment. Some netizens alleged him of revenge pertaining to criticisms he experienced regarding his stand on the Reproductive Health bill and the Sottocopy scandal, which he denied, explaining that he introduced the amendment way back in the last quarter of 2010. In a statement, Sen. Angara assured the public that he has no malicious intentions in including the cyberlibel clause in the act. Still, it has failed to put an end to the flames, especially that it has been pointed the discrepancies in the punishment for cyberlibel and traditional libel. As of writing, several citizen groups and personalities have staged online protests against the law, while some are in preparation to question its constitutionality in court, claming that it infringes basic freedoms. Asked about the President's view of the bill, the Palace has assured the public of a fair implementation of the law, and that it's open for opposing views, even for calls for amendments. BNPP: A Giant Put to Waste The Bataan Nuclear Powe Plant is an energy facility built 100 kilometers away from Manila, in a goverment reservation in Morong, Bataan. Built at a cost of around $2.3 billion and a capacity of 612 MW, it never went into operation, much more fueled, due to a variety of concerns. It was emphasized that it was President Ferdinand Marcos's idea to build a nuclear power plant in 1973, at the height of an oil crisis. Construction commenced 3 years later, but the plant was not completed until 1984, after the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, when it was revealed that the plant had more than 4,000 defects. When President Corazon Aquino took office in 1986, she decided not to

open the plant, amid protests and concerns regarding the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Having the plant rendered useless, paying for the finances spent for buiding the plant became the country's biggest burden, which was finally paid off in 2007. The country then has looked for several proposals on converting the plant into a coal, oil or gas-fired powered station, but it was deemed less economical in the long term than building new ones. A financial plan was submitted by the Korean Electric Power Corporation in 2010, assessing that it would take at much as $1 billion in order to rehabilitate the plant. A report was also prepared by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2008 stating that the Philippine government should prepare the proper infrastructure and safety standards first before opening the plant or building a new one in the future. The proponents and opposition for the re-opening of the plant has presented valid arguments. For the pro side, they believe that the power plant is actually made according to standards and that it could be opened safer than the Fukushima Daichi Nuclear Plant in Japan, which just like the BNPP, is built near the sea. They also believe that the more than 600 MW potential capacity of the plant would be helpful to avert a power crisis in the future, and that it could supply cheaper electricity that coal-fired or hydroelectric power plants. For the anti side however, they are disputing the safety of the plant, considering the amount of defects it had during its construction, and that its equipment is already out of date. Citing the Fukushima disaster also, opponents warned about the risks of operating the power plant, much more if a nuclear meltdown takes place after an earthquake, tsunami or volcanic eruption, as the plant is located near sources of such disasters. They also emphasized that the Philippines should move towards renewable energy sources, such as wind, geothermal, biomass and solar energy rather than opening the plant because the technologies are now available in pursuing these ends. At the moment, certain legislators have passed bills that seek to rehabilitate the power plant. In the 2007-2035 Energy Plan of the Department of Energy, it has cited that the country should consider having a nuclear energy program, hinting that it might pursue the re-opening of the plant. However, in the current administration of President Benigno Aquino Jr., it has kept mum on its stand regarding the controversial power plant. Currently, the BNPP site in Bataan has been opened to the public as a tourist attraction. EPALism: Advertising Politicians as Brands A movement is gaining ground in order to stop what is seems to be common practice - politicians or aspriring ones posting their names on public works, tarpaulins and other materials to claim credit for government projects, or just to position themselves for the next election. These people, dubbed as Epals,

are subject of Anti-Epal, a group that seeks to put an end to this practice by exposing and humiliating guilty politicians online and lobby for stricter laws regarding premature campaigning. With now 30,000 likes as of writing, the Facebook page set-up for the purpose has been flooded with complaints and photos coming from citizens regarding epalism in their communities. A variety of posters, "trademarks", faces and slogans have been reported on the site, such as the "HB" tiles and Cong. Winston Castelo's tarpaulins all around Quezon City. Others have been subject to laughter, much more in anger, such as the "E" insignia in public works in Pasig, or the tandem of Gov. ER and Mayor Girlie Ejercito appearing in Laguna's streets and tourist attraction, with even an accompanying music video. Some are noted to be too absurd, such as the "Happy Fiesta" signages, business licenses, a politican's name in food packs, relief goods, rubber shoes, and even a pack of popcorn. In a short span of time, the Anti-Epal movement has caught the attention of the media, civil society organizations, and even legislators. Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago has pressed for the passage of the Anti-Epal bill, whe she authored 2 years back. Some public officials, such as Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim and Quezon City Mayor Herbert Bautista has ordered the removal of posters and streamers in their cities, with Mayor Bautista even moved to the extent of removing the "HB" decorative tiles on the city's roads. Still, with the lack of legislation regarding Epalism, it has still been business as usual for most politicians, doing it for the guise of public information. Cong. Lucy Torres-Gomez, for instance, has explained that her tarpaulins bearing her face together with his husband Richard Gomez is the only way for her to disseminate how she is working in Congress. Sec. Joel Villanueva of TESDA, for one, has admitted that he rather choose to be Epal than to be judged as doing nothing in his post. Both, according to rumors, have been reprimanded by the President due to this practice. What has complicated the matter more is a Supreme Court decision dated November 25, 2009 that effectively made premature campaigning "legal". In the resolution, the high court explained that such kind of offense can only be committed by candidates if only they submitted a Certificiate of Candidacy (CoC) and have committed the offense between his submission and the prescribed period of campaign. In this light, public officials and aspiring politicians have been allowed to plaster their names and faces of public works and signanges, even if entails spending people's taxes. The Commission of Elections, rendered powerless regarding the issue, has resorted to reminding voters about the fiasco. Commissioner Sixto Brillantes, in a statement, has denounced Epalism and asked voters to "remember these politician's names and forget them come election day." Citizens groups have initiated "Epal Tours" to protest about this practice and to educate the masses, but it has been proven ineffective, especially that the election period comes near.

What could be the only exisiting moves to curb Epalism is Sen. Miriam's Santiago's Senate Bill 1967 that seeks to prohibit public officials to has his or her name or image in any public work project. A DILG Memorandum signed by Sec. Jesse Robredo in 2010 has seeked the same but has been rendered useless in practice. Conclusion The policy process is very dynamic and colorful in the Philippines not because of clashes among political ideologies but rather driven by personalities and spontaneity of issues. Most, if not all of our laws and policies are actual reaction to news-worthy events, such as the Anti-Voyeurism Act or amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering Act. Current issues such as land reform, the Reproductive Health Bill and the Freedom of Information Bill are most likely products of clamor and clash by a variety of interests, highlighted by the country's media landscape. In a way, policy-making in the Philippines is like watching a game show, such as Deal or No Deal. Our policy-makers is in the hot seat, presented a string of suitcases and forced to make a choice or to change his decision. Like the banker in the show, or the audiences cheering in the background, different personalities, parties and interest group seek to influence the way our policy-makers decide, presenting the pros and cons. Some might opt to stay safe; other might push the risk. At the end of the show, the contestant makes a choice, either to Deal or not to Deal, in the end to be proven if his decision is worth it or not. But unlike in a game show where money is the one involved, in real-life the future course of a society is the one being betted on. Unlike in a game show, there's still a chance to correct mistakes in policy-making in the continous effort to adapt policies according to present context. The cases presented would be a good example to shed light on how policy is shaped in the country. These might appear or disappear on out TV screens or Twitter dashboards until such time that our policy-makers finally decide on what to do (or not to do), which is impossible, to think that Policymaking is an never-ending cycle.

Works Cited Amadora, Len. (2011). BNPP to power the future?. Available: http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/305437/bnpp-power-future. Last accessed 26 September 2012. Andrade, Jeanette. (2012). Bistek bows to anti-epal clamor. Available:

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/268756/bistek-bows-to-anti-epal-clamor. Last accessed 26 September 2012. Aquino, Trisha. (2012). Ew. The 'Anti-Epal Tour' highlights the lows in Philippine politics. Available: http://www.interaksyon.com/article/42768/ew--the-anti-epal-tour-highlights-the-lows-inphilippine-politics. Last accessed 26 September 2012. Calica, Aurea. (2012). Palace wants 'epal' billboards taken down. Available: http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=846136&publicationSubCategoryId=63. Last accessed 26 September 2012. Calonzo, Andrea. (2012). Authors defend inclusion of online libel in cybercrime law. Available: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/274706/scitech/technology/authors-defendinclusion-of-online-libel-in-cybercrime-law. Last accessed 26 September 2012. Cinco, Maricar. (2012). Top Palace techie defends cybercrime law. Available: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/274636/top-palace-techie-defends-cybercrime-law. Last accessed 26 September 2012. Department of Interior and Local Government (2010). Memorandum No. 2010-101. Epalwatch. Available: http://epalwatch.tumblr.com/post/28042344616/office-of-the-secretary-republic-ofthe. Last accessed 26 September 2012. International Atomic Energy Agency. (2008). IAEA Advises Philippines on Next Steps for "Mothballed" NPP. Available: http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2008/bataannpp.html. Last accessed 26 September 2012. Lebumfacil, Marigold. (2012). Sotto defends cybercrime prevention law . Available: http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=851538&publicationSubCategoryId=107. Last accessed 26 September 2012. Lendon, Brad. (2011). Philippine nuclear plant to become tourist attraction. Available: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/11/philippine-nuclear-plant-to-become-tourist- attraction/. Last accessed 26 September 2012. Libel Laws of the Philippines (2011). Available: http://www.abogadomo.com/law-professor/lawprofessor-archives/libel-laws-of-the-philippines. Last accessed 26 September 2012. Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. (2012). Cybercrime Prevention Act. Available: http://www.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/. Last accessed 26 September 2012. Supreme Court of the Philippines En Banc. (2009). GR No. 181613: Penera vs. COMELEC. Available: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/november2009/181613.htm. Last accessed 26 September 2012.

Torres, Tetch. (2012). Constitutionality of cybercrime law questioned before SC. Available: http://technology.inquirer.net/17180/constitutionality-of-cybercrime-law-questioned-before-sc. Last accessed 26 September 2012. Valdes-Fabros, Corazon. (1998). The continuing struggle for a nuclear-free Philippines. Available: http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/499-500/4935.html. Last accessed 26 September 2012. Villavicencio, Patrick. (2012). Beware: Online libel included in Cybercrime Law. Available: http://www.interaksyon.com/infotech/beware-online-libel-included-in-cybercrime-law. Last accessed 26 September 2012. Uy, Jocelyn. (2012). Anti-epal move: Remember their faces, forget their names on poll day. Available: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/268604/shun-epal-politicians-on-election-day-comelec. Last accessed 26 September 2012. Waiting for an Anti-Epal Law. (2012) Available: http://ph.news.yahoo.com/editorial-waiting-anti-epal-1 law-163755296.html. Last accessed 26 September 2012.