1

POINTERS
Limitation on Copyright (the whole chapter) Sections 184 -190
Creative Commons and GNU-GPL
Libel Law
Concept and terminologies like participatory panopticon and sousveillance
Topics discussed in blogs: Blackberry, net neutrality, etc.

I. LIMITATIONS ON COPYRIGHT
SEC. 184. Limitations on Copyright
184.1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the following acts shall not constitute
infringement of copyright:
(a) the recitation or performance of a work, once it has been lawfully made accessible to
the public, if done privately and free of charge or if made strictly for a charitable or religious
institution or society; (Sec. 10(1), P.D. No.49)

(b) The making of quotations from a published work if they are compatible with fair use
and only to the extent justified for the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and
periodicals in the form of press summaries: Provided, That the source and the name of the
author, if appearing on the work, are mentioned; (Sec. 11, third par., P.D. No. 49)

(c) The reproduction or communication to the public by mass media of articles on current
political, social, economic, scientific or religious topic, lectures, addresses and other works of
the same nature, which are delivered in public if such use is for information purposes and has
not been expressly reserved: Provided, That the source is clearly indicated; (Sec. 11, P.D. No.
49)

(d) The reproduction and communication to the public of literary, scientific or artistic
works as part of reports of current events by means of photography, cinematography or
broadcasting to the extent necessary for the purpose; (Sec. 12, P.D. No. 49)

(e) The inclusion of a work in a publication, broadcast, or other communication to the
public, sound recording or film, if such inclusion is made by way of illustration for teaching
purposes and is compatible with fair use: Provided, That the source and of the name of the
author, if appearing in the work, are mentioned;

(f) The recording made in schools, universities, or educational institutions of a work
included in a broadcast for the use of such schools, universities or educational institutions:
Provided, That such recording must be deleted within a reasonable period after they were first
broadcast: Provided, further, That such recording may not be made from audio visual works
which are part of the general cinema repertoire of feature films except for brief excerpts of the
work;

(g) The making of ephemeral recordings by a broadcasting organization by means of its
own facilities and for use in its own broadcast;

(h) The use made of a work by or under the direction or control of the Government, by
2

the National Library or by educational, scientific or professional institutions where such use is in
the public interest and is compatible with fair use;

(i) The public performance or the communication to the public of a work, in a place
where no admission fee is charged in respect of such public performance or communication, by
a club or institution for charitable or educational purpose only, whose aim is not profit making,
subject to such other limitations as may be provided in the Regulations; (n)

(j) Public display of the original or a copy of the work not made by means of a film, slide,
television image or otherwise on screen or by means of any other device or process: Provided,
That either the work has been published, or, that original or the copy displayed has been sold,
given away or otherwise transferred to another person by the author or his successor in title;
and

(k) Any use made of a work for the purpose of any judicial proceedings or for the giving
of professional advice by a legal practitioner.

184.2. The provisions of this section shall be interpreted in such a way as to allow the work
to be used in a manner which does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and does
not unreasonably prejudice the right holder's legitimate interest.
SEC. 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work
185.1. The fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, research, and similar purposes is not
an infringement of copyright. Decompilation, which is understood here to be the reproduction of
the code and translation of the forms of the computer program to achieve the inter-operability of
an independently created computer program with other programs may also constitute fair use.
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is fair use, the factors to
be considered shall include:

(a) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial
nature or is for non-profit education purposes;

(b) The nature of the copyrighted work;

(c) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work
as a whole; and

(d) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
185.2 The fact that a work is unpublished shall not by itself bar a finding of fair use if such
finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
SEC. 186. Work of Architecture
Copyright in a work of architecture shall include the right to control the erection of any
building which reproduces the whole or a substantial part of the work either in its original form or
3

in any form recognizably derived from the original; Provided, That the copyright in any such
work shall not include the right to control the reconstruction or rehabilitation in the same style as
the original of a building to which the copyright relates. (n)
SEC. 187. Reproduction of Published Work
187.1. Notwithstanding the provision of Section 177, and subject to the provisions of
Subsection 187.2, the private reproduction of a published work in a single copy, where the
reproduction is made by a natural person exclusively for research and private study, shall be
permitted, without the authorization of the owner of copyright in the work.
187.2. The permission granted under Subsection 187.1 shall not extend to the reproduction
of:
(a) A work of architecture in form of building or other construction;

(b) An entire book, or a substantial past thereof, or of a musical work in which graphics
form by reprographic means;

(c) A compilation of data and other materials;

(d) A computer program except as provided in Section 189; and

(e) Any work in cases where reproduction would unreasonably conflict with a normal
exploitation of the work or would otherwise unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the
author.(n)
SEC. 188. Reprographic Reproduction by Libraries
188.1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection 177.6, any library or archive whose
activities are not for profit may, without the authorization of the author of copyright owner, make
a single copy of the work by reprographic reproduction:

(a) Where the work by reason of its fragile character or rarity cannot be lent to user in its
original form;

(b) Where the works are isolated articles contained in composite works or brief portions
of other published works and the reproduction is necessary to supply them; when this is
considered expedient, to person requesting their loan for purposes of research or study instead
of lending the volumes or booklets which contain them; and

(c) Where the making of such a copy is in order to preserve and, if necessary in the
event that it is lost, destroyed or rendered unusable, replace a copy, or to replace, in the
permanent collection of another similar library or archive, a copy which has been lost, destroyed
or rendered unusable and copies are not available with the publisher.
4

188.2. Notwithstanding the above provisions, it shall not be permissible to produce a
volume of a work published in several volumes or to produce missing tomes or pages of
magazines or similar works, unless the volume, tome or part is out of stock; Provided, That
every library which, by law, is entitled to receive copies of a printed work, shall be entitled, when
special reasons so require, to reproduce a copy of a published work which is considered
necessary for the collection of the library but which is out of stock. (Sec. 13, P.D. 49a)
SEC. 189. Reproduction of Computer Program
189.1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 177, the reproduction in one (1) back-up
copy or adaptation of a computer program shall be permitted, without the authorization of the
author of, or other owner of copyright in, a computer program, by the lawful owner of that
computer program: Provided, That the copy or adaptation is necessary for:
(a) The use of the computer program in conjunction with a computer for the purpose,
and to the extent, for which the computer program has been obtained; and

(b) Archival purposes, and, for the replacement of the lawfully owned copy of the
computer program in the event that the lawfully obtained copy of the computer program is lost,
destroyed or rendered unusable.
189.2. No copy or adaptation mentioned in this Section shall be used for any purpose other
than the ones determined in this Section, and any such copy or adaptation shall be destroyed in
the event that continued possession of the copy of the computer program ceases to be lawful.
189.3. This provision shall be without prejudice to the application of Section 185 whenever
appropriate. (n)
SEC. 190. Importation for Personal Purposes
190.1. Notwithstanding the provision of Subsection 177.6, but subject to the limitation under
the Subsection 185.2, the importation of a copy of a work by an individual for his personal
purposes shall be permitted without the authorization of the author of, or other owner of
copyright in, the work under the following circumstances:

(a) When copies of the work are not available in the Philippines and:

(i) Not more than one (1) copy at one time is imported for strictly individual use only;
or

(ii) The importation is by authority of and for the use of the Philippine Government; or

(iii) The importation, consisting of not more than three (3) such copies or likenesses in
any one invoice, is not for sale but for the use only of any religious, charitable, or educational
society or institution duly incorporated or registered, or is for the encouragement of the fine arts,
or for any state school, college, university, or free public library in the Philippines.
5


(b) When such copies form parts of libraries and personal baggage belonging to persons
or families arriving from foreign countries and are not intended for sale: Provided, That such
copies do not exceed three (3).
190.2. Copies imported as allowed by this Section may not lawfully be used in any way to
violate the rights of owner the copyright or annul or limit the protection secured by this Act, and
such unlawful use shall be deemed an infringement and shall be punishable as such without
prejudice to the proprietors right of action.
190.3. Subject to the approval of the Secretary of Finance, the Commissioner of Customs is
hereby empowered to make rules and regulations for preventing the importation of articles the
importation of which is prohibited under this Section and under treaties and conventions to
which the Philippines may be a party and for seizing and condemning and disposing of the
same in case they are discovered after they have been imported. (Sec. 30, P.D. No. 49)

II. CREATIVE COMMONS
Can CC give legal advice about its licenses or help with CC license enforcement?
No. We are not permitted to provide legal advice or legal services to assist anyone with
enforcing Creative Commons licenses. We are not a law firm. We're much like a legal self-help
site that offers free form-based legal documents for you to use however you see fit.
However, we do maintain a list of lawyers and organizations who have identified themselves as
being willing to advise clients about CC licensing issues. Please note that CC does not provide
referral services, and that we do not necessarily endorse or recommend anyone on this list for
any particular client or circumstance. Our international network of CC affiliates may also be a
good resource for further information (but not legal advice) about CC licenses in a particular
jurisdiction. Contact information of our affiliates is located on each jurisdiction's page.
Is use X a violation of the Noncommercial clause of the licenses?
Our noncommercial licenses (BY-NC, BY-NC-SA, BY-NC-ND) prohibit uses that are "primarily
intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation."
Whether or not a use is or is not commercial will depend on the specifics of the situation and the
intentions of the user, as stated in the definition. In our experience, most of the time whether a
use is permitted is pretty clear, and known conflicts are relatively few considering the popularity
of the NC licenses. As with all license terms, however, there will always be use cases that are
challenging to categorize as commercial or noncommercial. CC cannot help you determine what
is and is not commercial use. If you are unsure, we suggest that you either contact the licensor
for clarification or search for works licensed under a CC license that permits commercial uses
(BY, BY-SA, BY-ND).
Does my use constitute a derivative work or an adaptation?
6

It depends. A derivative work is a work that is based on another work but is not an exact,
verbatim copy. What this precisely means is a difficult legal question. In general, a translation
from one language to another or a film version of a book are examples of derivative works.
Under Creative Commons core licenses, syncing music in timed-relation with a moving image is
also considered to be a derivative work.
All Creative Commons licenses allow the user to exercise the rights permitted under the license
in any format or media. This means, for example, that under the Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 Unported license you can copy the work from a digital file to
a print file, as long as you do so in a manner that is consistent with the terms of that license.
Can CC give me permission to use a CC-licensed work that I found?
No. Creative Commons licenses are offered free of charge to the public. There is no registration
required to use a CC license, nor do we attempt to maintain any type of registry. We generally
have no direct knowledge of who is using the licenses or even for what (though we do have
some indirect knowledge of usage via various search engines). We have no way of contacting
the authors of CC-licensed works, nor do we offer any rights clearing services.
CC licenses haven't been ported to my jurisdiction (country). What can I do?
Every CC license is intended to be effective on a worldwide basis, whether "ported" to a specific
jurisdiction or not. If the licenses have not yet been ported to your jurisdiction, we recommend
that you simply use the Unported versions of our licenses. CC's Unported licenses were created
using standard terms from the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
and other international treaties related to copyright and intellectual property.
If you would like to help adapt the licenses to your jurisdiction, you might consider collaborating
with us on the license porting process: International Overview The Porting Process. If you would
like to contribute to this project, please contact Creative Commons International:
info@creativecommons.org.
Can I license software using CC licenses?
We do not recommend it. Creative Commons licenses should not be used for software. We
strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already
available. We recommend considering licenses made available by the Free Software
Foundation or listed at the Open Source Initiative. Unlike our licenses, which do not make
mention of source or object code, these existing licenses were designed specifically for use with
software.
Creative Commons has wrapped some free software/open source licenses with a human-
readable "Commons Deed" and machine-readable metadata. You may use these "wrapped"
software licenses to take advantage of the Creative Commons human-readable document as
well as the machine-readable metadata while still licensing your work under an established
software license. It is important to note that CC has not altered these software licenses in any
7

way, but has simply bundled human- and machine-readable explanations of the licenses along
with the original license text. Examples: GNU GPL, GNU LGPL, BSD.
How do I change/remove the CC search option built into the Firefox browser?
Mozilla has included Creative Commons in Firefox's search function along with search options
for Google, Amazon, and other popular sites. See Mozilla features.
If you want to remove a particular search option, click on the logo that appears in the search box
(the CC logo, or the Google logo, for example). You will see a pull down menu that allows you to
use your mouse to select a different search provider. Choosing "Manage search engines" allows
you to add or remove search engines of your choice, such as Flickr and Wikipedia.
To switch between search providers through the keyboard, start by clicking inside the search
box, then hold down the Ctrl key (or the Apple/Command key on a Mac) and press the up arrow
a few times. You should see the Google logo. To change to other providers, you can press Ctrl
(or Apple) + down. More information on the Firefox search is available on our wiki.
How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work?
All current CC licenses require that you attribute the original author(s). If the copyright holder
has not specified any particular way to attribute them, this does not mean that you do not have
to give attribution. It simply means that you will have to give attribution to the best of your ability
with the information you do have. Generally speaking, this implies five things:
If the work itself contains any copyright notices placed there by the copyright holder, you
must leave those notices intact, or reproduce them in a way that is reasonable to the
medium in which you are re-publishing the work.
Cite the author's name, screen name, user identification, etc. If you are publishing on the
Internet, it is nice to link that name to the person's profile page, if such a page exists.
Cite the work's title or name, if such a thing exists. If you are publishing on the Internet, it
is nice to link the name or title directly to the original work.
Cite the specific CC license the work is under. If you are publishing on the Internet, it is
nice if the license citation links to the license on the CC website.
If you are making a derivative work or adaptation, in addition to the above, you need to
identify that your work is a derivative work i.e., This is a Finnish translation of the
[original work] by [author]. or Screenplay based on [original work] by [author].
In the case where a copyright holder does choose to specify the manner of attribution, in
addition to the requirement of leaving intact existing copyright notices, they are only able to
require certain things. Namely:
They may require that you attribute the work to a certain name, pseudonym or even an
organization of some sort.
8

They may require you to associate/provide a certain URL (web address) for the work.
If you are interested to see what an actual license ("legalcode") has to say about attribution, you
can use the CC Attribution 3.0 Unported license as an example. Please note that this is only an
example, and you should always read the appropriate section of the specific license in question
... usually, but perhaps not always, section 4(b) or 4(c):
Creative Commons is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to making it easier for people to share
and build upon the work of others, consistent with the rules of copyright.
We provide free licenses and other legal tools to mark creative work with the freedom the
creator wants it to carry, so others can share, remix, use commercially, or any combination
thereof.
Creative Commons is a nonprofit organization
We work to increase the amount of creativity (cultural, educational, and scientific content) in the
commons the body of work that is available to the public for free and legal sharing, use,
repurposing, and remixing.
CC provides free, easy-to-use legal tools
Our tools give everyone from individual creators to large companies and institutions a simple,
standardized way to grant copyright permissions to their creative work. The Creative Commons
licenses enable people to easily change their copyright terms from the default of all rights
reserved to some rights reserved.
Some Rights Reserved
Creative Commons defines the spectrum of possibilities between full copyright and the public
domain. From all rights reserved to no rights reserved. Our licenses help you keep your
copyright while allowing certain uses of your work a some rights reserved copyright.
CC Licenses work alongside copyright
Creative Commons licenses are not an alternative to copyright. They work alongside copyright,
so you can modify your copyright terms to best suit your needs. Weve collaborated with
intellectual property experts all around the world to ensure that our licenses work globally.
Our other legal tools and resources
For those creators wishing to opt out of the copyright altogether, Creative Commons helps them
do so by providing tools that allow you to place your work as squarely as possible within the
public domain a no rights reserved alternative to copyright.
Your Support
9

Creative Commons today is alive and thriving thanks to the generous and continued support of
people like you. Spread the word about CC to your friends and family or donate and help build
the commons.
History of Creative Commons
Founding
Founded in 2001 with the generous support of the Center for the Public Domain, CC is led by a
Board of Directors comprised of thought leaders, education experts, technologists, legal
scholars, investors, entrepreneurs and philanthropists.
Creative Commons licenses
In December 2002, Creative Commons released its first set of copyright licenses for free to the
public. Creative Commons developed its licenses inspired in part by the Free Software
Foundations GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) alongside a Web application platform
to help you license your works freely for certain uses, on certain conditions; or dedicate your
works to the public domain.
In the years following the initial release, Creative Commons and its licenses have grown at an
exponential rate around the world. The licenses have been further improved, and ported to over
50 jurisdictions.
Science
Since 2005, Creative Commons has undertaken projects to build commons-based infrastructure
for science through identifying and lowering unnecessary barriers to research, crafting policy
guidelines and legal agreements, and developing technology to make research, data and
materials easier to find and use.
Education
Creative Commons also works to minimize legal, technical, and social barriers to sharing and
reuse of educational materials, with dedicated projects in this field since starting in 2007.
Global infrastructure for sharing
Creative Commons licenses, public domain tools, and supporting technologies have become
the global standard for sharing across culture, education, government, science, and more.

III. GNU GPL
The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL or simply GPL) is the most widely used free
software license, originally written by Richard Stallman for the GNU project.
10

The GPL is the first copyleft license for general use, which means that derived works can only
be distributed under the same license terms. Under this philosophy, the GPL grants the
recipients of a computer program the rights of the free software definition and uses copyleft to
ensure the freedoms are preserved, even when the work is changed or added to. This is in
distinction to permissive free software licenses, of which the BSD licenses are the standard
examples.
The text of the GPL is not itself under the GPL. The license's copyright disallows modification of
the license. Copying and distributing the license is allowed since the GPL requires recipients get
"a copy of this License along with the Program".
[5]
According to the GPL FAQ, anyone can make
a new license using a modified version of the GPL as long as he or she uses a different name
for the license, doesn't mention "GNU", and removes the preamble, though the preamble can be
used in a modified license if permission to use it is obtained from the Free Software Foundation
(FSF).
The GPL was written by Richard Stallman in 1989 for use with programs released as part of the
GNU project. The original GPL was based on a unification of similar licenses used for early
versions of GNU Emacs, the GNU Debugger and the GNU C Compiler.
[6]
These licenses
contained similar provisions to the modern GPL, but were specific to each program, rendering
them incompatible, despite being the same license.
[7]
Stallman's goal was to produce one
license that could be used for any project, thus making it possible for many projects to share
code.
As of August 2007, the GPL accounted for nearly 65% of the 43,442 free software projects
listed on Freshmeat,
[8]
and as of January 2006, about 68% of the projects listed on
SourceForge.net.
[9]
Similarly, a 2001 survey of Red Hat Linux 7.1 found that 50% of the source
code was licensed under the GPL
[10]
and a 1997 survey of MetaLab, then the largest free
software archive, showed that the GPL accounted for about half of the software licensed
therein.
[11]
Prominent free software programs licensed under the GPL include the Linux kernel
and the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC). Some other free software programs, (MySQL is a
prominent example) are dual-licensed under multiple licenses, often with one of the licenses
being the GPL.
Some observers believe that the strong copyleft provided by the GPL was crucial to the success
of GNU/Linux, giving the programmers who contributed to it the confidence that their work would
benefit the whole world and remain free, rather than being exploited by software companies that
would not have to give anything back to the community.
[12]

The second version of the license, version 2, was released in 1991. Over the following 15 years,
some members of the FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) community came to believe that
some software and hardware vendors were finding loopholes in the GPL, allowing GPL-licensed
software to be exploited in ways that were contrary to the intentions of the programmers. These
concerns included tivoization (the inclusion of GPL-licensed software in hardware that will
refuse to run modified versions of its software); the use of unpublished, modified versions of
GPL software behind web interfaces; and patent deals between Microsoft and GNU/Linux and
11

Unix distributors that may represent an attempt to use patents as a weapon against competition
from GNU/Linux.
Version 3 was developed to attempt to address these concerns. It was officially released on
June 29, 2007.
[13]

IV. LIBEL LAW
Citing various court decisions, abogadamo.com lists the elements of libel in the Philippines:
Imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another
Publication of the imputation
Identity of the person defamed
Existence of malice
The website also lists down a possible defense against libel:
In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the court and if it
appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that it was published with
good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants shall be acquitted.
But, there is also an exception:
every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true; if no good
intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown.
According to a very informative interview posted by Juned, potentially severely.
Juned interviewed Alex Villafania, who previously worked for Inquirer.net and is now finishing
his graduate studies. The money quote about blogging and libel:
Still, bloggers can still enjoy their freedom. but to avoid legal inconveniences, i would suggest
that bloggers, on a broader sense, should stick to ethical standards of writing, just as they have
to follow the standards of grammar and spelling. It is not one for a blogger to destroy the
reputation of another person without duly presenting the right evidence. Bloggers are also
citizens and as such, must exercise responsibility in their actions. There are many rules that are
being developed among blogging communities but one important rule is to be accountable for
your statements.
What Constitutes Libel Online?
An important question no doubt, since the answer can help Filipinos online avoid a lot of trouble
The Warrior Lawyer does a great job of answering the question in laymans terms (after a
disclaimer regarding lawyerly advice, of course):
12

If you call someone a scum-sucking, slimeball, swindling pimp, even if this is fairly accurate, and
post it online, you may be sued for making libelous statements.
Of course, its a bit more technical than that, as TWL explains. For a statement to be libelous:
it must be defamatory
it must be malicious
it must be given publicity
the victim must be identifiable
INTERNET LIBEL
First, the disclaimer. This is not intended as lawyerly advice. Neither does it refer a specific case
or circumstance. Much less can this be considered as an offer to provide legal services or to
advocate anything. Its just one persons opinion on a matter of increasing interest to bloggers
and other denizens of cyberspace: what constitutes internet libel in the context of Philippine
laws.
How is libel defined under Philippine laws ? Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code defines libel
as a 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.
For an imputation then to be libelous, the following requisites must concur: (a) it must be
defamatory; (b) it must be malicious; (c) it must be given publicity; and (d) the victim must be
identifiable.
If you call someone a scum-sucking, slimeball, swindling pimp, even if this is fairly accurate, and
post it online, you may be sued for making libelous statements.
Defamatory words are those calculated to induce the hearers or readers to suppose and
understand that that the person or persons against whom they were uttered were guilty of
certain offenses, or are sufficient to impeach their honesty, virtue or reputation, or to hold the
person or persons up to public ridicule. Philippine law also presumes every defamatory
imputation to be malicious, even if true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is
shown (Article 254 of the Revised Penal Code). Malice exists when there is an intentional doing
of a wrongful act without just cause.
The libel must be given publicity, circulated or publicized. Postings in a forum, message board
or blog can certainly be considered as publication. Lastly, the victim or offended party must be
identifiable.
Continuation of Libel on the Internet Under Philippine Law Part 1
What would be the liability of service providers for libelous acts committed by clients ?
13

Under Republic Act no. 8792, otherwise known as the
Electronic Commerce Act, a party or person acting as a service provider incurs no civil or
criminal liability in the making, publication, dissemination or distribution of libelous material if: a)
the service provider does not have actual knowledge, or is not aware of the facts or
circumstances from which it is apparent that making, publication, dissemination or distribution of
such material is unlawful or infringes any rights; b) the service provider does not knowingly
receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity; c) the service provider
does not directly commit any infringement or other unlawful act and does not induce or cause
another person or party to commit any infringement or other unlawful act and/or does not benefit
financially from the infringing activity or unlawful act of another person or party (Section 30, in
relation to Section 5, E-Commerce Law)
Hence, a service provider should not be held liable if he has no actual knowledge of the libel,
does not benefit financially from the unlawful act or does not directly commit the libelous act or
induce someone to do so. Of course, once the service provider gains actual knowledge of the
libel, timely steps must be taken, within the service providers authority, to remove the offending
material by warning the perpetrator and, if all else fails, terminating the offenders account. By
acting speedily on the matter, the service provider shows good faith and that it does not
condone the libelous acts.
A fundamental sense of fairness and simple good manners and right conduct is usually enough
to keep you, a good netizen, out of trouble.
Libel Law in the Philippines
Under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, libel is defined as a 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 discredit or cause the dishonor or contempt of a
natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. Thus, the elements of
libel are: (a) imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another; (b) publication of the
imputation; (c) identity of the person defamed; and, (d) existence of malice. [Daez v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 47971, 31 October 1990, 191 SCRA 61, 67]
In libel cases, the question is not what the writer of an alleged libel means, but what the words
used by him mean. Jurisprudence has laid down a test to determine the defamatory character of
words used in the following manner, viz:
Words calculated to induce suspicion are sometimes more effective to destroy reputation than
false charges directly made. Ironical and metaphorical language is a favored vehicle for slander.
A charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to induce the hearers to suppose and
understand that the person or persons against whom they were uttered were guilty of certain
offenses, or are sufficient to impeach their honesty, virtue, or reputation, or to hold the person or
persons up to public ridicule. . . . [Lacsa v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 161 SCRA 427
(1988) citing U.S. v. O'Connell, 37 Phil. 767 (1918)]
14

An allegation is considered defamatory if it ascribes to a person the commission of a crime, the
possession of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or
circumstances which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt, or which tends to
blacken the memory of one who is dead.
There is publication if the material is communicated to a third person. It is not required that the
person defamed has read or heard about the libelous remark. What is material is that a third
person has read or heard the libelous statement, for a mans reputation is the estimate in which
others hold him in, not the good opinion which he has of himself. [Alonzo v. Court of Appeals,
241 SCRA 51 (1995)]
On the other hand, to satisfy the element of identifiability, it must be shown that at least a third
person or a stranger was able to identify him as the object of the defamatory statement. In the
case of Corpus vs. Cuaderno, Sr. (16 SCRA 807) the Supreme Court ruled that in order to
maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable (People vs. Monton, L-16772,
November 30, 1962), although it is not necessary that he be named (19 A.L.R. 116). In an
earlier case, the high court also declared that defamatory matter which does not reveal the
identity of the person upon whom the imputation is cast, affords no ground of action unless it be
shown that the readers of the libel could have identified the personality of the individual
defamed. (Kunkle vs. Cablenews-American and Lyons 42 Phil. 760).
This principle has been recognized to be of vital importance, especially where a group or class
of persons, as in the case at bar, claim to have been defamed, for it is evident that the larger the
collectivity, the more difficult it is for the individual member to prove that the defamatory remarks
apply to him. (Cf. 70 ALR 2d. 1384).
PRESUMPTION OF MALICE:
The law also presumes that malice is present in every defamatory imputation. Thus, Article 354
of the Revised Penal Code provides that:
Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention
and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases:
1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal,
moral or social duty; and
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial,
legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement,
report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers
in the exercise of their functions.
Paragraph 2 aforequoted refers to a qualifiedly privileged communication, the character of which
is a matter of defense that may be lost by positive proof of express malice on the part of the
accused. Once it is established that the article is of a privileged character, the onus of proving
actual malice rests on the plaintiff who must then convince the court that the offender was
15

prompted by malice or ill will. When this is accomplished the defense of privilege becomes
unavailing. [Santos v. Court of Appeals, No. L-45031, 21 October 1991, 203 SCRA 110, 114]
Prescinding from this provision, when the imputation is defamatory, as in this case, the
prosecution need not prove malice on the part of the defendant (malice in fact), for the law
already presumes that the defendants imputation is malicious (malice in law). The burden is on
the side of the defendant to show good intention and justifiable motive in order to overcome the
legal inference of malice.
In order to constitute malice, ill will must be personal. So if the ill will is engendered by ones
sense of justice or other legitimate or plausible motive, such feeling negatives actual malice.
[Aquino, Ramon C., The Revised Penal Code, Vol. III, Bk. II, 1997 Ed., citing People v. de
los Reyes, Jr., 47 OG 3569]
It is established doctrine that the malice that attends the dissemination of the article alleged to
be libelous must attend the distribution itself. It cannot be merely a resentment against a person,
manifested unconnectedly several months earlier or one displayed at a much later date.
HOW COMMITTED:
Under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, libel may be committed by means of writing,
printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition,
cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means.
PERSONS RESPONSIBLE:
Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in
writing or bysimilar means, shall be responsible for the same. The author or editor of a book or
pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial
publication, shall be responsible for the defamations contained therein to the same extent as if
he were the author thereof.
DEFENSES:
In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the court and if it
appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that it was published with
good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants shall be acquitted.
Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not constituting a crime shall not be
admitted, unless the imputation shall have been made against Government employees with
respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties.
In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be
acquitted.
It is important to remember that any of the imputations covered by Article 353 is defamatory
and, under the general rule laid down in Article 354, every defamatory imputation is presumed
to be malicious, even if it be true; if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is
16

shown. There is malice when the author of the imputation is prompted by personal ill-will or spite
and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person who claims
to have been defamed. Truth then is not a defense, unless it is shown that the matter charged
as libelous was made with good motives and for justifiable ends.

V. PARTICIPATORY PANOPTICON OR SOUSVEILLANCE
The Participatory Panopticon, or Sousveillance = the conscious capture of processes
from below, by individual participants
Discussion
James Cascio
"The idea of the emerging participatory panopticon scares a lot of people. That's not surprising;
after all, there are numerous ways in which a world in which millions of us carry always-on,
mobile networked recorders could lead to invasions of privacy, harassment of the powerless,
and an increased coarsening of public discourse. But if we accept the notion that the
participatory panopticon is a likely consequence of otherwise desirable improvements to
communication and information technologies, it becomes incumbent upon us to think of ways to
use it as a tool for good." (http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/004069.html)
Participation Capture, Sousveillance, Panoptical surveillance
Sousveillance is the conscious capture of processes from below, by individual participants;
surveillance is from the top down, while participation capture is inscribed in the very protocols of
cooperation and is therefore an automatic inscription of what we are doing:
In English, on the emergence of the Participatory Panopticon:
"Soon -- probably within the next decade, certainly within the next two -- we'll be living in a world
where what we see, what we hear, what we experience will be recorded wherever we go. There
will be few statements or scenes that will go unnoticed, or unremembered. Our day to day lives
will be archived and saved. Whats more, these archives will be available over the net for
recollection, analysis, even sharing.
And we will be doing it to ourselves. This won't simply be a world of a single, governmental Big
Brother watching over your shoulder, nor will it be a world of a handful of corporate siblings
training their ever-vigilant security cameras and tags on you. Such monitoring may well exist,
probably will, in fact, but it will be overwhelmed by the millions of cameras and recorders in the
hands of millions of Little Brothers and Little Sisters. We will carry with us the tools of our own
transparency, and many, perhaps most, will do so willingly, even happily. I call this world the
Participatory Panopticon." (http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/002651.html ;)

17

Michael Zimmer
" Surveillance, of course, implies the watching over of subjects from above, with an explicit
power relationship between the watchers and those placed under its gaze. Trying to describe
surveillance as peer-to-peer suggests a flattening of the power relationship that is counter to
its very definition. Similarly, the notion of a participatory panopticon is at the same time
redundant and contradictory. Foucault revealed how panoptic power becomes internalized by
the subjects, thus, they necessarily participate in their own subjugation. Yet the top-down
power relationship within the panoptic structure remains. The participation by the subjects does
not make them equal with the watchers. Yet the informational voyeurism associated with Web
2.0 seems to imply a balance between the users: one shares their data streams in order to
improve the overall worth of the network, coupled with the presumption that theyll be able to
observe and leverage others streams as well.
This notion resembles that of equiveillance, a state of equilibrium between the top-down power
of surveillance, and the resistant bottom-up watching of sousveillance. Yet, this notion implies
merely a balance in access to surveillance information, and is focused more on how to reach
some kind of harmonious relationship with our rising surveillance society. With the informational
voyeurism of Web 2.0, however, the goal isnt to resist or come to terms with the power yielded
by traditional surveillance, but rather to participate in a widespread and open sharing of the
mundane details of ones daily life. To give ones peers a glimpse into ones own personal
universe." (http://michaelzimmer.org/2007/05/29/privacy-and-surveillance-in-web-20-
unintended-consequences-and-the-rise-of-%e2%80%9cnetaveillance%e2%80%9d/)
A View on How Panopticon affects or infects the Philippines
By Maria Gracia Patricia Bolos
Brief History of Panopticon
Pan, of Greek etymology, meaning all. Optic or opticon, of Greek etymology, meaning seeing.
Thus the word panopticon came into being, a noun of New Latin expression which means a
room for the exhibition of novelties.
1

Originally, panopticon is a type of prison building designed by English philosopher and social
theorist Jeremy Bentham in 1785. The concept of the design is to allow an observer to observe
(-opticon) all (pan-) prisoners without the prisoners being able to tell whether they are being
watched, thereby conveying what one architect has called the sentiment of an invisible
omniscience.
2

The architectural figure incorporates a tower central to an annular building that is divided into
cells, each cell extending the entire thickness of the building to allow inner and outer windows.
The occupants of the cells are thus backlit, isolated from one another by walls and subject to
scrutiny both collectively and individually by an observer in the tower who remains unseen.
Toward this end, Bentham envisioned not only Venetian blinds on the tower observation ports
but also mazelike connections among tower rooms to avoid glints of light or noise that might
betray the presence of an observer.
18

Bentham derived the idea from the plan of a factory designed for easy supervision, and his
design was intended to be cheaper than that of the prisons of his time, as it required less staff.
As the watchmen cannot be seen, they need not be on duty at all times, effectively leaving the
watching to the watched.
3

He primarily wanted such idea of the building for observation of the people within it to determine
the problem and determine the solution from such circumstances. The essence of it consists,
then, in the centrality of the inspectors situation, combined with the well-known and most
effectual contrivances for seeing without being seen.
4
An advantage of such is whatever
purposes the plan may be applied to, particularly where it is applied to the severest and most
coercive purposes, is, that the under keepers or inspectors, the servants and subordinates of
every kind, will be under the same irresistible control with respect to the head keeper or
inspector, as the prisoners or other persons to be governed are with respect to them.
5
He
likewise stated that the influence of this plan not less beneficial to what is called liberty, than to
necessary coercion; not less powerful as a control upon subordinate power, than as a curb to
delinquency; as a shield to innocence, than as a scourge to guilt.
6
This kind of proposition that
he has states as an advantage the unawareness of those being observed, thus, making them
act naturally, without preparations and open instantaneously to the view of the observer.
Today, many modern prisons are built in a podular design influenced by the Panopticon
design, in intent and basic organization if not in exact form. As compared to traditional
cellblock designs, in which rectangular buildings contain tiers of cells one atop the other in
front of a walkway along which correctional officers patrol, modern prisons are often
decentralized and contain triangular or trapezoidal-shaped housing units known as pods or
modules designed to hold between sixteen and fifty prisoners each. In these designs, cells are
laid out in three or fewer tiers arrayed around either a central control station or a desk which
affords a single correctional officer full view of all cells within either a 270 or 180 field of view.
Control of cell doors, Closed Circuit Television monitors, and communications are all conducted
from the control station. The correctional officer, depending on the level of security and
segregation, may be armed with non-lethal and lethal weapons to cover the pod as well.
Increasingly, meals, laundry, commissary items and other goods and services are dispatched
directly to the pods or individual cells. These design points, whatever their deliberate or
incidental psychological and social effects, serve to maximize the number of prisoners that can
be controlled and monitored by one individual, reducing staffing; as well as restricting prisoner
movement throughout the prison as tightly as possible.
7
Monetary advantage is very much a
factor to States which have very high level of criminal tendencies and low national income on
the other hand. A cost effective way of enabling peace and order for the State, at the same time,
lesser tax paid by the people are used in maintaining the same purpose.
Constitutional Limitations and Special Laws
Section 5, Article II, 1987 Philippine Constitution
The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and promotion
of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of
democracy.
19

The above cited law reiterates the principle of the State to protect its people, whether they be
prisoners, politicians, laymen, tycoons, whoever, as long as they sojourn or live in the Philippine
Islands. It is of utmost importance that citizens recognize the protection that the State is
affording them. Otherwise they would not appreciate whatever means employed for achieving
the purpose. In accordance with this, the individual citizens must be secured in their own
person. Though the changes in technology would most likely impair that security, the State
should implement laws for the protection of it. Thus implementing the Electronic Commerce Act
or Republic Act 8792, and as part of the State policy:
Section 2, RA 8792
The State recognizes the vital role of information and communication technology in nation
building; xxx its obligation to facilitate the transfer and promotion of adaptation technology, to
ensure network security, connectivity and neutrality of technology for the national benefit; xxx
Not only will this afford protection to the citizens of the State but also to those who uses our
technology even if they are mere transient visitors of the country. With the rampant
improvement of technology in the world, we must arm ourselves with knowledge and
adaptability to these sudden changes. Technology would never go idle again.
Right to Privacy Impaired by Technology
Everywhere we look people are very strict, if not obsessed, about their privacy. Not only in their
own homes but in everything they do in their lives and in everywhere they go. That is why
housewives buy high quality curtains, not only to boast about it to her friends but to protect her
family from the people outside their homes. That is why fathers fix fences around their houses,
not only to show how good they are in making and fixing them, but to prevent uninvited people
in trespassing in their property. That is why computer geniuses put spywares, anti-viruses,
firewalls in their computer, not just because of the possible crash of their computers but
because they want to protect the information they have in their computers. That is why the
Government have military training for soldiers, not just because they are needed by a State but
because they want the citizens to be protected in case of occupation or invasion.
But are these really enough to say that people or things we care about are protected of their
rights? Are these safety measures that we have now enough to say that no one can harm us or
invade our privacy? The right to privacy should be inviolable. It is one of the fundamental rights
of an individual. The right of privacy is well established in international law. The core privacy
principle in modern law may be found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12
which states:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the
protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
8

The right to privacy is internationally recognized as a fundamental right, hence, respected all
over the world. But with the consistent discovery of technology, are we really protected? Are we
really protected from other persons? Are we really protected from ourselves? Do we really
20

protect ourselves or do we endanger it by opening up to technology? By technology, we do not
only pertain to hi-tech gadgets but also the usage of them.
Internet Usage
What is the internet? The Internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks that
interchange data by packet switching using the standardized Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP). It
is a network of networks that consists of millions of private and public, academic, business,
and government networks of local to global scope that are linked by copper wires, fiber-optic
cables, wireless connections, and other technologies.
9
Internet was created way back in 1969,
during the Cold War, by the United States military. It was meant to be a nuke-proof
communications network.
Today, the Internet spreads across the globe and consists of countless networks and
computers, allowing millions of people to share information. Data that travels long distances on
the Internet is transferred on huge lines known collectively as the Internet backbone.
10
Now,
almost everybody or everyone in the world uses the internet regardless of whether they own a
computer or not. The internet can easily be accessed by anyone who wishes to use it. People
acquire information through it, they exchange correspondence using it, and they give
information through it as well. One may say that through the use of the internet, everyone would
be aware and up-to-date on information and current events, not only in the country they are in,
but all over the world. Indeed, internet is an efficient tool for everyone. But it can also be in a
way destructive, depending on the person using it. Depending on the purpose for which it is
being used, and depending on the intention of the person using it. In a way, it may be a helpful
tool on one hand, a destructive mechanism on the other.
What happens when not only have the tools of documenting the world become democratized,
so too have the tools for manipulating our interpretations of reality?
11
Most of us, if not all, are
becoming dependent on computer technology, specifically the cyberspace. Before the I Love
You virus disseminated in cyberspace, most internet users upload their files, documents,
pieces of information, and anything they want to be accessed anywhere that a computer and an
internet connection may likewise be accessed. Not knowing that by doing such, they make
themselves more prone to being hacked or their delicate, confidential or priceless intellectual
property would be penetrated. True enough, those who are very mobile needs such feature to
their advantage. But we cannot wholly depend on this because with the unbridled development
of technology everyday, one cannot say what would happen next. The information that you have
kept classified would be in the headlines tomorrow. More so, the pictures or videos that you
have tried so hard to remain confidential would be part of a magazine the next few days. All of
these, done without your consent or even your knowledge which is a clear violation of your
rights. Not only desecration of your privacy but a besmirched reputation on top of it.
Participatory Panopticon Through Technology
In internet culture, participatory panopticon refers to the proliferation of photographic and video
content accessible through the World Wide Web and other internet sources to the point that it
can be utilized as an up-to-date, authoritative source on all human activities. The term was
21

coined in this context by futurist Jamais Cascio, co-founder of Worldchanging, specifically in
regard to the participatory panopticon, an example of the implicit web in which the personal
media of multiple individuals is synthesized into a more comprehensive, global picture. A better
term for this concept is perhaps Participatory Big Brother which is more popular and can be
understood instantly by a large number of people.
12

If we look at the term in the view of Jeremy Bentham, it connotes that people volunteer
themselves to be prisoners, or rather be guinea pigs, for their own improvement or so that they
may be observed and given remedy afterwards. Would this approach really work? Would being
in a restricted environment really make people adapt or would the environment adapt to the
people being restricted in it?
In the realm of information technology, the right of privacy has focused on the ability of
individuals to control the collection and use of personal information held by others. A German
court has described this as the right of informational self-determination. This right is often
articulated as fair information practices and codified in civil law. At the national level, most
governments have a general right of privacy set out in their Constitutions. Privacy rights have
also been established by means of case law and enactments of legislatures.
13

Most people think that panopticon does not exist in real life, or at least in their own world. But for
so many people who enjoy blogging, social networks, chat, web hosting and the like, these
people are the most likely preys of information hacking or piracy. Persons who sign up for these
kinds of activities in the world wide web voluntarily give their information to the administrator of
such sites and create their own profile for other peoples viewing or just to comply with the
required information to create such profile. Without them knowing that the very fact that they
have given up basic information may lead to further access of their confidential, if not vital
information that they keep. A very specific example of these sites is Facebook. Upon creation of
your account, the user tends to add up applications that he/she would be using or would be
trying out. Every time you add up an application it would direct you to a page where it gives you
the option to either allow access to your information so the administrator may be able to work
out and let you access the application. The bad thing about it is it allows access to your profile
information, your network, your friends information and other pertinent information you have
provided for the administrator. This simple adding up of the application may lead to your so
called piercing the veil of your right to privacy and your friends right to privacy. A clear and
apparent violation of your rights without you knowing about it, or rather you participating in it or
condoning it by adding the application.
Blogging on the other hand, works the same way. By frequently ranting and raving about
everything under the sun or moon for that matter, lets not only your audience a piece of what
you are but providing them information about you and your lifestyle or anything about you. By
the frequent story telling that you love to do at the end of the day allows not only the
administrator access to your information but your give them the permission to publish such story
and broadcast it to your networks as well.
Not only is participatory panopticon seen in the web but also in television. Big Brother shows,
Pinoy Big Brother here in the Philippines, is one of the very exquisite example of a television
22

show about participatory panopticon. The contestants are confined in a house where their every
action, every movement and every conversation that they will be having or are having are
monitored by cameras in every part of the house in all angles. Making them like the prisoners
and Big Brother their observer like in Benthams proposal. It is more like they are under
surveillance but they knew about it and are freely acting upon every situation that are imposed
upon them. The house where they live in has a confession room wherein they may without
restraint tell Big Brother about their thoughts, feelings and other opinions, in a way giving Big
Brother information about them.
It was said that cameras lessen crimes as persons are thinking twice on whether to commit a
crime because of the fear that they are being watched and of the fact that they know that they
may get caught. But what people who acquire or make use of CCTV camera or Closed-circuit
television cameras dont know is that the same information that they gather in using such
gadget may be used against them or such gadget may be used against them. The CCTV
cameras are frequently used in surveillance by the police to observe the probable criminals that
they are hunting down. Now, it is still being used for observation not for catching criminals but
also for security purposes. Notwithstanding this, people who use the gadget may use it for their
own bad motives like a stalker who may use surveillance cameras or CCTV cameras to capture
a glimpse of their victim.
Participatory panopticon is everywhere. It involves our lives, personality, identity, family, lifestyle
and almost everything about us. It may create as well as destroy us depending on what motive it
is to be used and depending on what purpose it will be used. Liability on participatory
panopticon cannot be imputed solely on the party gathering, collecting and using the information
but may likewise be imputed to the information provided as well. People neglect the importance
of confidentiality. They demean the privacy that they have and treat it as if it is a commodity that
one may replace easily. Little did others know that participatory panopticon is a real problem.
That peoples privacy is in danger. With the rise of different kinds of technology, you may never
know when you are being watched either as a prey or as a predator. If individuals are the target
of the participatory panopticon more so should they be careful. But it would be more frightening
to think what if it is our government that is the prey? How can the government protect itself from
this information gathering and such being used against us? What would happen now to the
citizens privacy under the protection of the government?