ARELLANO

LAW

SECRET

FILES

The liability, or lack thereof, of the person contributing, person maintaining, and the service provider of
the Arellano Law Secret Files (ALSF) may be culled from the case of Disini vs. Secretary of Justice and
from the Cybercrime Act. The person or persons contributing in the said page will be liable for any
defamatory statements made against another person with the knowledge that it is false or if made with
reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Likewise, the person or persons maintaining the ALSF,
or otherwise known as administrators, will be liable as if he is the original author of the potential libelous
statement, if he consented with the publishing thereof. However, the service provider, i.e. Facebook, is not
liable for any of the abovementioned acts of the author and the administrator.
Let me begin by discussing the process with which the ALSF operates. The ALSF page is a Facebook
account created by an anonymous person or group of persons with the goal of creating a forum for law
students in the Arellano School of Law. To announce its existence, the administrator "invited" different
Arellano law students to Like the page and submit their secrets by clicking the link provided therein.
The said link will lead the contributor to another page sponsored by docs.google.com where two boxes
are available for the contributor to type in his secrets in the first box and his alias in another. The
purpose of using docs.google.com is to encourage submission of posts by hiding the identity of the
contributor from the administrator and the reading public. The final act is done by clicking the Submit
button in order to send the now anonymous message to the administrator of the ALSF. The anonymous
post will then be published in the ALSF page after the administrator has done editing the real names of
teacher/s or student/s contained in the submitted post, if any, and replace them with asterisks, supposedly
to protect the identity of those mentioned therein. However, in cases where there is no person named in
the post, then the administrator publishes the "secret" as is. These so-called secrets, as we may all know
by now, are random thoughts in a persons mind, which ofcourse must at least relate to the common
interest of the group, that is, lawschool. Eighty percent of the time, one will read nothing much really, but
a few post about their crushes in the campus, or how their recitations went in so far as terror professors
are concerned. However, one could also read rants from students on various matters, including but not
limited to, the difficulty of their subjects, the complexity of their professors and ofcourse, the lives of
their unsuspecting classmates. Sometimes, one will also notice a statement libelous in character, attracting
curiosity from its readers. This legal paper will deal with the legal implications of the writings made in
the ALSF. The terms "posts" and "secrets" are interchangeably used in this paper to mean the submitted
writings of the author in the AFLS page.
There are three parties that are involved in this paper. The contributor or author of the submitted assailed
statement (hereinafter referred as author); the administrator of the ALSF, or the person who controls the
publishing of the submitted posts in the ALSF page; and the service provider, in this case, Facebook.
Section 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act punishes cyber libel or libel committed through a
computer system. As reiterated in the Disini case, cyberlibel is actually not a new crime since Article
353, in relation to Article 355 of the penal code, already punishes it. Anyone who anonymously post in
the ALSF a statement tarnishing a persons reputation, character, or status, is liable for the crime of libel,
subject to the defense of absence of actual malice. However, a distinction must be made to those
defamatory statements made to a private person and a public officer. As pointed out in the Disini case and
summarized by Aris Rufo of rappler.com, for libel to hold water in the case of public officials or public
figures, the Court said the higher standard of actual malice must be satisfied to attain conviction. Actual
malice or malice in fact is committed when the offender makes the defamatory statement with the
knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it is false or not. In proving actual malice,
the burden of proof lies with the offended party or the prosecution and not the accused. On the other hand,
when the offended party is a private individual, malice is presumed in the offending article, with the
burden of proof of showing otherwise being on the accused. Citing its previous ruling in Borjal vs. Court

of Appeals, the SC said the law explicitly presumes its existence (malice in law) from the defamatory
character of the assailed statement. For his defense, the accused must show that he has justifiable reason
for the defamatory statement even if it was in fact true.
Further, in the case of Corpus vs. Cuaderno, Sr., the Supreme Court ruled that in order to maintain a libel
suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable, although it is not necessary that he be named. Libel can
prosper if it can easily be identified who is being alluded to.
Let us apply the above discussion to a real case. I asked a friend who had a chance to read some of the
posts in the ALSF to share the most unforgettable post which she had read. She answered, the post which
says that a certain individual (whose Facebook "profile" was captured and attached to the post) is a
prostitute. Obviously, my friend clicked the attachment to see an enlarged picture of the alleged
prostitute. Thankfully, she did not recognize the girl but reckoned she was in her mid-twenties. Thereafter,
my friend immediately unliked the page after reading the libelous post so that she would no longer be
receiving updates from the said page. Immediately after I knew of such post, I tried back-reading the
numerous posts published in this controversial page but to no avail. I can no longer find this libelous post
as it may have been deleted already or it may have been posted in the blocked ALFS page. Further
investigation shows that the ALSF page that is active today is not the first ALSF page that was created.
The original ALSF page has allegedly been blocked by Facebook for being inappropriate. I could only
surmise that the libelous prostitution post, which could no longer be found was posted in the original
blocked ALSF. Notwithstanding, the crime of libel has already been consummated. Deleting the
libelous post does not extinguish the criminal liability of the person or persons responsible. For liability to
be extinguished, the same must fall under the circumstances mentioned in Article xxx of the Revised
Penal Code. One cannot take back the cyberbullying that one person has to go through just because of one
stupid post, regardless of the truth of the said imputation.
Given this very unfortunate event, it is about time to look into cyberlibel seriously. The author of this
libelous post is, without doubt, as mentioned, liable for libel under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC) aggravated by the use of a computer as provided for in the Cybercrime Act. The elements of libel,
to wit: (a) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another; (b) publication of the
charge; (c) identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence of malice - were all present in this case. A
post about a girl whom the author called a prostitute, a clear discreditable condition, has been published in
the ALSF, a "public" group in Facebook. Settled is the rule that communication to a third person is
considered sufficient publication. Verily, the victim defamed was duly recognized, not only by her
Facebook name, but by her physical appearance as well. Most importantly, malice is presumed since the
victim is a private person. For his defense, the author must show that there is a justifying reason for the
defamatory statement even if it was in fact true.
Noteworthy is the distinction pointed out by the Solicitor General in the Disini case regarding crimes
committed through the use of information and communications technology and similar crimes committed
using other means. In using the technology in question, the offender often evades identification and is
able to reach far more victims or cause greater harm. The distinction, therefore, creates a basis for higher
penalties for cybercrimes. The internet seems to be a very effective tool in destroying a person
nowadays. Once something is posted, it is there to remain forever and it will haunt the victim until the
end. Videos taken without the consent of unsuspecting women, who are having sexual intercourse with
their respective partners, are proof of this. In a matter of seconds, the videos have already been
downloaded from and uploaded to numerous porn sites. And even if their distribution is subsequently
controlled by the authorities, the damage has already been so great that there is really not much one can
do to at least ease the pain but punish the perpetrator.

Now, applying the above aggravating circumstance, the penalty for libel by means of writing is prision
correccional in its minimum and medium period would be increased by one degree, that is, prision
correccional in its medium and maximum period. This is in addition to the civil liability which may be
brought by the offended party. The victim may file with the Regional Trial Courts an action for libel
pursuant to Article 360 of the RPC. However, the victim must be wary of the prescriptive period of this
crime, as Article 90 of the RPC provides that the same prescribes within a year from publication of the
alleged libelous article. As for this case, the libelous post was posted in the ALSF in 2013, therefore, the
case can no longer be filed. It has already prescribed.
Next we go to the liability of the administrator of ALSF, if any. As the publisher of a defamatory post, his
liability will depend on whether or not there is a filtering process before the post is published in the page.
Say for example, a person sends his secret anonymously to the ALSF page using the link provided
therein. When his post is published at the instance the author of the post clicked "submit", and the same
was published the same way it was written by the author, then there is no filtering process being done by
the administrator. However, if the original post was edited to replace real names of people to the asterisk
symbol (****), or if the original post sent by the author was not published at all, then the administrator is
said to have a say in the publishing of the submitted secrets in ALSF page, libelous or otherwise. He is
reviewing the posts according to the standards set by him, which in this case, is not clearly established nor
made known to the public.
Applying the abovementioned theories, the first instance excludes the administrator from any malicious
and libelous posts published in his page. He cannot be punished for something that is beyond his control
save for cases where he already was notified of a possible libelous post and yet, did not remove such. But
for the ALSF, the second instance applies. It is clear that the administrator of the AFLS page filters all
submitted posts, such that, before they are published in the page, the same undergoes the process of
review and selection. Hence, when a libelous post is admitted in the AFLS page, it is presumed that the
same was done with the consent of the administrator, and he becomes liable regardless of intent or
inadvertence in his part, with respect to the defamatory materials posted by others on his page. While
aiding or abetting in the crime of libel in the cyberworld has been held by the Supreme Court as
unconstitutional for curtailing freedom of speech, the same only refers to the people who "Like",
"Comment" and "Share" in Facebook or "Retweet" in Twitter, libelous posts. The Supreme Court went
further and said that "it is not clear if aiding or abetting libel in the physical world is a crime." However,
Administrators on the other hand, by failing to systematically review the contents of a possible libelous
post submitted in his page, opens himself to risk of liabilities although it may not be that of aiding or
abetting libel. Conveniently, since docs.google.com hides the true identity of the author, the administrator
can always claim that the post was only submitted thru the said website but for all we know, the
administrator and the author of the libelous post are one and the same person. The administrator cannot
hide under the theory that only the original author of the a libelous post is liable, as this will become an
easy way out in libeling a person online due to the inherent difficulty in proving the identity of the author,
which although possible with technology, costs money and time.
Article 360 of the RPC also enumerated the persons who can be held liable for libel. Administrators in
this case can be likened to that of an editor of a book or pamphlet, a daily newspaper, or magazine, such
that he shall be also responsible for defamatory statements made in the AFLS page as if he was the
original authors thereof. Like editors, administrators have the final call of what is published and what is
not, in his newspaper. It is a balancing act of attracting readers in his paper and protecting another
persons rights to a private reputation. With a greater responsibility at hand, the administrator is expected
to act with due care.
Moreover, the Revised Penal Code also punishes crimes committed through reckless imprudence. Gross
negligence in Mobile vs. Aschcraft was defined as the absence or want of even slight care and diligence.

Under Article 19 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, everyone person must, xxx in the performance of
his duties, act with justice xxx and good faith. As an administrator, he has the ultimate duty of reviewing
all posts before he admits them for publication. The ALSF is a "public" page which means that anyone,
who is also a Facebook user can, see all posts in its "wall", send a private message, or submit
thru doc.google.com their "secrets", although he is not a bonafide member of the Arellano University
School of Law. Meaning to say, these posts, libelous or not, may come from any person who wants to
share something even if they may not be law school related. With this kind of loose setting, it is but
necessary that the administrator provides for clear guidelines and a strict review process to protect the
interest of everyone. To relieve him from any liability is to open a venue of irresponsible exercise of
freedom of speech. Because freedom of speech, like any other protected constitutional right, is not
absolute.
Finally, we now try to discuss the liability of Facebook as a service provider. According
to en.wikipedia.org, Facebook is a social networking service launched by Mark Zuckerberg and his
college roommates, all of whom are students of the Harvard University. To use the site, one must register
using a valid email address. After registering, users can now create a user profile, add other users as
"friends", exchange messages, post status updates and photos, share videos and receive notifications when
others update their profiles. Additionally, users may join common-interest user groups, organized by
workplace, school or college, or other characteristics, and categorize their friends into such as "People
From Work" or "Close Friends". As of June 2014, Facebook had over 1.3 billion active users.
AFLS can be classified as a group page where its common interest is law school, specifically Arellano
Law. It cannot be argued that Facebook is one, if not the most, popular social media of this generation.
According to rappler.com in its article dated 20 June 2012, the latest data from SocialBakers shows that
almost one out of every 4 Filipinos has a Facebook account. There are 27,720,300 Facebook users in the
Philippines. Thats about 27.75% of the population and 93.33% of the online population. In fact, cellular
phone providers have given free Facebook access 24/7, for a certain amount and duration, to all of its
subscribers. It has expanded to include mobile application, tablets, and computers, such that users can
now log in any devise where the Facebook application is available, anywhere in the country. Volume
wise, it becomes impossible for Facebook to monitor each and every posts in a single account. In this
regard, the Supreme Court ruled in the Disini case that "No provider or user of an interactive computer
service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information
content provider and cannot be held civilly liable for any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict
access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene...whether or not such
material is constitutionally protected." It may be culled from the said decision that information freely
provided by the users of Facebook, such as personal circumstances of the user, messages to and from
another user, posts made by a user to his or to another's "wall" and other types of information, will not
make Facebook liable as they are not the original author of the said information. It only holds information
for its users. As a service provider, Facebook is a passive party in this story, such that, it will not initiate
any action unless prompted by a report from another user or from the authorities. The same may be
compared to our Judicial system, such that the courts will need the parties to initiate the action, i.e., filing
of the appropriate case before their sala so the court with jurisdiction may act upon it. Otherwise, any
issue between parties not raised in the proper court will not be decided upon.
However, it would be a different story altogether when a report has been sent to Facebook regarding an
alleged inappropriate page which contains libelous post and Facebook does not act upon such report. To
report an incident, any user can click "I dont like this photo option and further options are provided by
Facebook, to wit: a) Its annoying or not interesting b) Im in this photo and I dont like it; c) I think it
shouldnt be on Facebook; and d) Its spam. Further clicking any of the mentioned options will bring the
user to more options that will accurately describe the incident report. Whichever the user chooses, his
option notifies Facebook of an issue and is expected to respond accordingly. In this instance, knowledge

should be taken against the service provider as they are ultimately responsible to provide for corrective
and preventive measures for any violations committed within their control. A prompt action is expected
from the service provider following notification of a problem or issue, failure to do so will make
Facebook liable.
As for docs.google.com, it will not also be liable for it only provided the means by which posts shall be
submitted anonymously to the administrator. It is not the original author of the libelous page nor is it part
of the administration of the ALFS page as discussed above.