An Application of the Hart v Dworkin Debate on the

Philippine Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012

Tiglao, Jose Angelo C.

11486031

Philosophy of Law G01

Atty. Jocelyn Cruz
2 April 2015

HART V DWORKIN: CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.

INTRODUCTION
a. The Existence of Cyberlibel...... 3

II.

CYBERLIBEL IN THE PHILIPPINES

a. The Law on Libel. 7
b. Jurisprudence on Libel: Observations of the Philippine Supreme
Courts Rulings.. 10
c. Recent Events: The Existence of Cyberlibel. 13

III.

APPLYING HART VS DWORKIN

a. Deciding Hard Cases Involving Cyberlibel.... 17

IV.

CONCLUSION. 20

HART V DWORKIN: CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012

INTRODUCTION
A. The Existence of Cyberlibel
In the past, any written or printed word, which was offensive or caused
offensive, was easily determined as punishable either criminally or civilly. In the
Philippine jurisdiction, the publication of offensive words is punished as libel, a
criminal offense.1 However, in a modern age where freedom in a democracy is
valued highly by its citizens, many imply that maintaining libel as a criminal
offense is against the constitutional guarantee of free expression under the 1987
Philippine Constitution.2 Others, on the other hand, claim that libel as a crime in
the Philippines is contrary to our obligations under international law.3 In the
modern era of social media and technology, the question regarding libels
constitutionality is still up for debate, especially in this time where the Internet is
so prevalent, with blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and comments made online, it is
worth examining the subject matter of committing libel online, also known as
cyberlibel. 4 Especially since, in the words of one commentator, cyberlibel,
defamation claims for material posted on web-pages, in chat-rooms, or in

1 An Act Revising the Penal Code and Other Penal Laws [REVISED PENAL CODE]. Act
No. 3815, art. 353 (1932).
2 Oral Argument at 44:00, Adonis et al. v. Executive Secretary, et al., G.R. No. 203378,
available at
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/features/oral_arguments/cybercrime/index.php.
3 Summary of the Petition for Certiorari & Prohibition of Adonis, et al. v. Executive
Secretary, et al., available at
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/features/oral_arguments/cybercrime/203378.php (last
accessed April 2, 2015)
4 The term cyberlibel is used in academic circles, by laymen, and media. See Shaheen
Shariff & Leanne Johnny, Cyber-Libel and Cyber-Bullying: Can Schools Protest Student
Reputation and Free Expression in Virtual Environments, 16 EDUC. & L.J. 307, 316-17
(2007).

HART V DWORKIN: CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012

electronic newspapers has complicated defamation jurisprudence. 5 Quoting

another another, Cyber-libel is a sticky issue because cyberspace is a breeding
ground for libel without boundaries.6
For the purposes of this research paper, any form of online libel or libel
committed online shall be referred to as cyberlibel.
In the Philippines, there are many views regarding the libel provision.
Some people have said that the cyberlibel provision is subsumed under the
current Revised Penal Code.7 There are courts and judges that have actually
indicted people who have committed online libel, even prior to the enactment of
the cyberlibel statute.8 Furthermore, even our justice system has detained a
person for committing cyberlibel. 9 On the other hand, there are courts that have
declined to prosecute libel committed online, or what we refer to as cyberlibel.10
Particularly, there was one case of libel where the accused was allegedly

5 Mansfield, supra note 4, at 907 (citing Bruce W. Sanford, Who is the Plaintiff? The
Public v. Private Person Determination, in LIBEL AND PIRACY 13-18 (2d ed.)).
6 Cory Janssen, Cyberlibel, available at
http://www.techopedia.com/definition/24877/cyber-libel (last accessed April 2,
2015).
7 Tan, supra note 2.
8 Christine O. Avendao, CA affirms libel case vs teen blogger for maligning another
gin, PHIL. DAILY INQ., Feb. 3, 2013, available at
http://technology.inquirer.net/22725/ca-affirms-libel-case-vs-teen-blogger-for-
maligning-another-girl (last accessed April 2, 2015).
9 See UCAN Philippines, Activists hit first cyber libel arrest, available at
http://philippines.ucanews.com/2012/10/22/activists-hit-first-cyber-libel-arrest/
(last accessed April 2, 2015).
10 See Bonifacio v. Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 149, 620 SCRA 268, 273-74
(2010). The Court affirmed the 20 June 2007 Resolution issued by the Secretary of
Justice by saying that [t]he Justice Secretary opined that the crime of internet libel
was non-existent, hence, the accused could not be charged with libel under Article
353 of the [Revised Penal Code].

HART V DWORKIN: CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012

defaming someone through the use of Facebook. The trial court denied to hear
the case and stated that it will not prosper due to jurisdictional issues.11 Even
the Secretary of Justice, in one of its resolutions, stated that the crime of
cyberlibel is nonexistent under Philippine law.12
It is safe to presume that it is because of this lack of a statute to punish
those who commit online libel under the Philippine legal system, which pushed
Congress to make cyberlibel punishable under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of
2012 or Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10175.13 Currently, the statute is under strict
scrutiny in the eyes of the Supreme Court as numerous petitions have been filed
in questioning its constitutionality and its applicability in the Philippines.14
However, this paper will not be focusing on the constitutional aspect of
the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012; rather, what this paper will be limited
about is the study on how the courts will come with a decision on issues of
cyberlibel. With a law that poses a contravention in principles and in law, this
paper will focus on an analysis and comparison with the theories made by
Ronald Dworkin and H.LA. Hart regarding the discretionary power of the Court.

11 See Karen Flores, Court junks PHs first Faebook libel case, available at
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/07/26/11/court-junks-phs-first-facebook-
libel-case (last accessed April 2, 2015).
12 See Bonifacio, 620 SCRA at 273.
13 An Act Defining Cybercrime, Providing for the Prevention, Investigation,
Suppression, and the Imposition of Penalties Therefor and For Other Purposes.
[Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012], Republic Act No. 10175. Section 4 (4). This
Section provides that libel is 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. Id.
14 See Petitions Challenging Republic Act No. 10175, available at
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/features/oral_arguments/cybercrime/index.php (last
accessed 3 April 2015).

HART V DWORKIN: CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012

Thus, the problem this paper poses is whether or not Philippine judicial
tribunals should decide issues involving cyberlibel on a purely legal basis, not
including principle matters.
In relation, this paper shall: (1) introduce the concept of cyberlibel; (2)
provide an overview of libel under Philippine laws and jurisprudence; and (3)
examine cyberlibel and defamation under different foreign jurisdictions for the
sake of guidance. Thereafter, this paper shall give the analysis on the Hart v
Dworkin debate on the issue of cyberlibel in the Philippines. To summarize, it
shall provide a conclusion on the state of cyberlibel in the Philippines.

HART V DWORKIN: CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012

CYBERLIBEL IN THE PHILIPPINES

A. The Law on Libel
1. Revised Penal Code
In the Philippine jurisdiction, the crime of libel is defined in Article 353 of the
Revised Penal Code as follows:
[Article] 353. Definition of libel. A libel is 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.15

Libel requires the presence of the following elements: (1) imputation of

discreditable act or condition to another; (2) publication of the imputation; (3)
identity of the person defamed; and (4) existence of malice.16
Notably, it has been explained by the Court that libel can also be acted
upon as a purely civil action, and not just a criminal case.17 It ruled that:
[d]espite being defined in the Revised Penal Code, libel can also be
instituted, like in the case at bar, as a purely civil action, the cause of
action for which is provided by Article 33 of the Civil Code, which
provides:
Article 33. In case of defamation, fraud and physical injuries, a civil action
for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may
be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed
independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence.
The above elements of libel were adopted as well in a purely civil action
for damages, as held by this Court in GMA Network, Inc. v. Bustos:

15 REVISED PENAL CODE, art. 353.
16 Vicario v. Court of Appeals, 308 SCRA 25, 29 (1999).
17 Yuchengco v. Manila Chronicle Publishing Corporation, 605 SCRA 684, 697
(2009).

HART V DWORKIN: CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012

An award of damages under the premises presupposes the commission

of an act amounting to defamatory imputation or libel, which, in turn,
presupposes malic. Libel is the public and malicious imputation to
another of a discreditable act or condition tending to cause the dishonor,
discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person. Liability for libel
attaches present the following elements: (a) an allegation or imputation of
a discreditable act or condition concerning another; (b) publication of the
imputation; (c) identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence of
malice.18

Under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, libel can be committed in
the following manner:
[Article] 355. Libel means by writings or similar means. A libel committed
by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph,
painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar
means, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods or a fine ranging from [P200.00] to [P6,000.00], or both,
in addition to the civil action[,] which may be brought by the offended
party.19

Meanwhile, Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code also includes the
following as those who can be held liable for libel, as well as the rule on venue
for filing of libel cases:
[Article] 360. Persons responsible. Any person who shall publish,
exhibit[,] or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in
writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same.
The author or editor or 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.

18 GMA Network, Inc. v. Bustos, 504 SCRA 638, 650-51 (2006).
19 REVISED PENAL CODE, art. 355.

HART V DWORKIN: CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012

2. The Cybercrime Prevention Act

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 also provides for and penalizes
libel which is committed electronically or what this Article has termed cyberlibel.
Under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, criminal liability is incurred under
Section 4 (c) (4), which defines cyberlibel as 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.20
Interestingly, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 has also raised the
penalty of all crimes under the Revised Penal Code, so long as they are
committed through the use of computers or information and communications
technologies, to wit:
[Section] 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code,
as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through[,] and with the
use of information and communications technologies shall be covered by
the relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the penalty to be
imposed shall be one degree higher than that provided for by the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be.21
It is worth mentioning that the abovementioned cyberlibel provisions have
garnered the most publicity in relation to the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012,
even though there are opinions by some legal experts that cyberlibel can still be
prosecuted even without the said law.

20 Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, Sec. 4 (c)(4).
21 Id. Section 6.

HART V DWORKIN: CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012

10

Currently, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 has been declared

constitutional and that sections 4-C-3, 7, 12, and 19 were unconstitutional. With
this, the statute remains functional and subsisting in Philippine society.
B. Jurisprudence on Libel: Observation of the Philippine Supreme Courts Ruling
Through the years, the Supreme Court has discussed and formulated rules on
libel in its many decisions. A glance at Supreme Court jurisprudence would
show that, from 1901 to mid-2012, there are currently 177 cases decided by the
Supreme Court, which dealt with libel.22
The crime of 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.23
The Supreme Court has expounded on libel, which it considers to be
subsumed under defamation, as follows:
Defamation, which includes libel and slander, means the offense of
injuring a persons character, fame or reputation through false and
malicious statements. It is that which tends to injure reputation or to
diminish the esteem, respect, good will or confidence in the plaintiff or to
excite derogatory feelings or opinions about the plaintiff. It is the
publication of anything[,] which is injurious to the good name or
reputation of another or tends to bring him into disrepute. Defamation is

22 This result is based on the total number of cases indexed under the term libel in
eSCRA. See Central Books, e-SCRA Library, available at
http://www.central.com.ph/escra/ (last accessed April 3, 2015).
23 REVISED PENAL CODE, art. 353.

HART V DWORKIN: CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012

11

an invasion of a relational interest since it involves the opinion[,] which

others in the community may have, or tend to have, of the plaintiff.24

The Court has likewise determined who may be held liable for libel. It is
the position of the Supreme Court that:
Not only is the person who published, exhibited[,] or caused the
publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing shall be responsible
for the same, all other persons who participated in its publication are
liable, including the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper,
magazine or serial publication, who shall be equally responsible for the
defamations contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author
thereof.25

Thus, based on the interpretation of the Supreme Court, all those who
participated in the publication of a libel are also liable for the crime of libel.26
Such a position, when applied to the realm of cyberlibel or libel
committed online, would certainly be fraught with complications. It would mean
that anyone who participated in the publication of a libel online maybe held
liable for libel. This would then include the website, an administrator of a
website, or even those who share or like in social media sites such as Facebook
or Twitter. Such an interpretation may unduly expand libel, as applied to this day
and age, expand cyberlibels breadth, scope, and applicability.
The Court is aware, of course, of the various constitutional issues that
may apply in relation to the issue of libel. As explained earlier, it has been help

24 MVRS Publications, Inc, v. Islamic Dawah Council of the Philippines, Inc., 396
SCRA 210, 218-19 (2003) (emphasis supplied).
25 Bautista v. Cuneta-Pangilinan, G.R. No. 189754, Oct. 24, 2012.
26 Id.

HART V DWORKIN: CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012

12

by the Supreme Court that [t]he judiciary, in deciding suits for libel, must
ascertain whether or not the alleged offending words may be embraced by the
guarantees of free speech and free press.27 In another case, the Supreme Court
explained that [l]ibel stands as an exception to one of the most cherished
constitutional rights, that of free expression.28
One noted issue about libel is that of shopping for a convenient venue for
the filing of a libel case. This is what commentators would call libel tourism,
and is a prevalent issue in other jurisdictions. In the Philippines, this is likewise a
most sensitive issue, so much so that the many cases reaching the Supreme
Court on libel have touched on this.
The case of Chavez has an outstanding, though lengthy, disquisition of
the issue and the current Philippine rule on venue for libel. Notably, in the case
of Bonifacio, the Court further elaborated on the venue requirements for libel, in
relation to supposedly libelous internet postings or cyberlibel. It can seen from
the pronouncements of the Court that it chose to take a more restrictive
interpretation when it comes to venue, precisely to stop the floodgates of libel
suits being filed in all locations where the supposedly libelous website could be
accessed.
Interestingly however, in other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom
(U.K.), a resident of the U.S. was allowed to file a libel suit under English law
because under such law, libel is committed where the publication takes place

27 Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank, 105 SCRA at 319.
28 Chavez, 514 SCRA at 293.

HART V DWORKIN: CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012

13

and internet publications are published where they are downloaded.29 This is
contrast to Philippine jurisprudence. In any case, the Supreme Court has
acknowledged that:
[w]hile libel laws ensure a modicum of responsibility in ones own speech
or expression, a prescribed legal standard that conveniences the easy
proliferation of libel suits fosters an atmosphere that inhibits the right to
speak freely. When such a prescribe standard is submitted for affirmation
before this Court, as is done in this petition, it must receive the highest
possible scrutiny, as it may interfere with the most basic of democratic
rights.30

As such, the Court is aware that allowing any legal standard that would
encourage the filing of libel cases should not be allowed, which may explain its
ruling in the Bonifacio case and in Chavez.
Thus, a review of some of the more pivotal rulings of the Court on libel,
indicates an awareness by the same of the issues surrounding libel, including its
constitutional issues, as well as issues surrounding its expansion, scope and
venue. It would seem then that the balance, when it comes to libel, remains an
uneasy one under jurisprudence.
C. Recent Events: The Existence of Cyberlibel
Prior to the resolution of the Supreme Court declaring the Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012 as constitutional, there were many pending cases before
the lower courts, which essentially are cyberlibel cases. The differing treatments
by various government entities, as well as different opinions by various

29 See King v. Lewis, 2005 EWCA (Civ) 1328, 2 (2005) (Eng.).
30 Chavez, 514 SCRA at 293.

HART V DWORKIN: CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012

14

commentators, shows the uncertainty of punishing libel under current Philippine

law without the Cybercrime Prevention Act.
In the case of a girl identified only as JRV CICL-IS-NO. 08-1614 (JRV),
libel charges were filed against JRV and a number of co-accused due to
comments made online.

31

Different governmental bodies issued differing

rulings. The Office of the Prosecutor of Marikina City initially dismissed the
charges in August 2009.32 Upon appeal by the complainant to the Department of
Justice, the Department of Justice, in a resolution dated 24 March 2011,
reversed the findings of the Prosecutor and held that all the elements of libel
were present.33
Notably, this finding was made after the Resolution of the Secretary of
Justice in 2007, which opined that internet libel was non-existent.34 It must be
recalled that in the case of Bonifacio, reference was made to the Resolution of
the Secretary of Justice Raul Gonzales dated 20 June 2007 where [t]he Justice
Secretary opined that the crime of internet libe was non-existent, hence, the
accused could not be charged with libel under Article 353 of the [Revised Penal
Code].35
Returning to the matter of JRV, an information was then filed in the
Regional Trial Court based on the 24 March 2011 Resolution of the Department
of Justice (which directly contradicted the 20 June 2007 Resolution of the

31 See Avendao.
32 Id.
33 Id.
34 See Bonifacio, 620 SCRA at 273.
35 Bonifacio, 620 SCRA at 273.

HART V DWORKIN: CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012

15

Secretary of Justice), before the Marikin Regional Trial Court.36 In 6 May 2012,
the Marikina Trial Court then found probable cause for the issuance of a warrant
of arrest.37 This was the subject of the petition for certiorari before the Court of
Appeals.38 The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and found it bereft of
merit.39 This, therefore, paved the way for trial on the allegedly libelous acts.40
In another case, which according to news reports, was likewise based on
online posts (on Facebook) considered by the aggrieved party as libelous, there
was also an indictment for prosecution before the Courts for libel. Thus,
probable cause was found by the Office of the Prosecutor that there existed a
case for libel committed online. However, upon reaching the court, the case was
dismissed due to jurisdictional venue issues. Interestingly, this finding of
probable cause by the prosecutorial arm of the government was also made after
the 20 June 2007 Resolution of the Secretary of Justice that no online libel
existed.41
Also notable is that the subject matter of both cases were libelous
statements made online. Yet, there were some differences in the treatment of
the two.
Another interesting consideration is this: both cases were filed and
hurdled the minimum threshold of probable cause in the prosecutorial level (in

36 See Avendao.
37 Id.
38 Id.
39 Id.
40 Id.
41 See Bonifacio, 620 SCRA at 273.

HART V DWORKIN: CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012

16

the JRV case, only after appeal to the Department of Justice) without using the
provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Yet, the treatment of the
courts was different for each case. One proceeded due to the findings of
probable cause, while in the other, there was a dismissal based on venue or
jurisdictional issues.
This circumstance of filing of the case even without the application of the
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 definitely puts into question the need or
even necessity for said law42 since there seems to be an acknowledgement that
libel committed online can still be filed before the proper agencies under the
current existing law on libel, which is the Revised Penal Code.43
In fact, one commentator has stated that:
[i]nternet libel has been punishable since the Internets creation and was
not created by the Cybercrime Law. In fact, existing internet libel charges
are under the Revised Penal Code, [which was] enacted in 1930. The
Cybercrime Laws legal issues are fare more technical than the
Reproductive Health Laws, which many distill into an individuals right to
choose.44

Professors Jesus Jose Disini, widely acknowledged as an expert on

internet law, has also been reported in news articles as stating that cyberlibel, or
online libel as he called it, existed even before the Cybercrime Prevention Act
was enacted.45

42 See generally Petitions Challenging Republic Act No. 10175.
43 See REVISED PENAL CODE, art. 355.
44 Tan, supra note 2.
45 See Panela, supra note 7.

HART V DWORKIN: CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012

17

APPLYING THE HART VS DWORKIN DEBATE

A. Deciding Hard Cases Involving Cyberlibel
With the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 being declared as constitutional by
the Supreme Court, any person may now file a complaint against any person
who commits cyberlibel within Philippine jurisdiction. This means that any
person who commits any libelous act through online means such as Facebook
or Twitter, and any other person, who is involved in the same, can be held liable
under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
However, the same situation poses a grave problem to our Courts,
specifically in trying out cases involving those acts of cyberlibel committed in
social media.
For the purposes of this paper, try to imagine if a person posts something
on Twitter, a widely used and popularized social media account, which involves
a defamatory statement against an individual. Suppose that the elements of libel
are present in the tweet under the rules provided by the statute. If so, then the
person who tweeted the said statement is clearly liable for committing online
libel. Yet, what if five other people retweeted his statement? Will the five other
people be held guilty of cyberlibel under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of
2012?
Due to the lack of present jurisprudence in the Philippine context, this
paper shall discuss a few landmark cases in foreign jurisdictions.

HART V DWORKIN: CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012

18

If the issue posed above is to be tried under English law, then yes, the
five people shall be declared guilty of online libel. In Kasckhe v. Gray,46 the
aggrieved party sought to hold the owner/provider/operator (blog provider) of
a blog liable even though the blog provider was not the one who posted the
actual libelous article.47 Another individual, who used the blog, was the one who
posted the article. This decision strongly indicated that even the blog provider
may be held liable for libel committed on the blog, even though the blog
provider was not the one who actually posted the libelous article.48
The above ruling shows a very strict application of the law involving
cyberlibel due to the level of difficulty the issue presents. Thus, for the purposes
of this paper, we shall categorize cyberlibel cases similar to those mentioned as
hard cases. With this, the question remains on how should Philippine courts
decide on hard cases involving issues on cyberlibel.
There are two ways that the court may decide regarding this matter, both
leading to a judicial decision. Yet, what will make the two decisions differ would
be the philosophy behind its creation. The first decision by a judge may follow
similarly to English law, which is a very strict application of the law. Here, we can
see the philosophy of H.L.A. Hart saying that judges should decide on cases
strictly based off the letter of the law. If in the above example, where five people
retweeted a statement, then applying Harts legal theory, they shall be held
liable for committing online libel.

46 Kaschke v. Gray, 1 W.L.R. 452 (2011) (Eng.).
47 Id. At 487.
48 Id. At 457.

HART V DWORKIN: CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012

19

On the other hand, if the judge decides based on the letter and spirit of
the law, it is most likely that the decision would be different. It can possibly lead
to a judicial decision where the Court declares that the person who tweeted the
statement is the only one liable while the rest are innocent, by way of the sound
discretion of the judge around the facts of the case. This shows a stark contrast
on how cyberlibel cases can be decided by our courts in the Philippines.
H.L.A. Harts philosophy is very strict based on his legal positivist
philosophy saying that our society is composed simply of rules and that is how
we should decide hard cases through a strict application of the law. The
debate exists due to Ronald Dworkins opposing view to the matter wherein he
believes that the society is composed not just of rules, but of principles, and
that when the Court is faced with hard cases, it is important that the judge
should render a decision not simply based on the law, but also with an
application of his discretion. These philosophies are the building blocks of the
letter vs spirit of the law debate, which this paper shall not delve into deeper.
What is important to remember is that due to the complications and lack of
jurisprudence that the Philippines have involving cyberlibel, it is the courts duty
to legislate through its judicial decisions in order to fill the gaps left by our
legislators.
It is to be hoped that our Philippine Court shall decide on matters
involving cyberlibel on a manner that protects the rights of the people,
specifically that of free speech and expression, regardless of their legal
philosophy, may it be that of Hart or Dworkin.

HART V DWORKIN: CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012

20

CONCLUSION
This paper has shown that cyberlibel remains uncertain in the Philippine
jurisdiction, specifically in its treatment in the Courts. It is, of course, beyond the
scope of this paper to comprehensively comment on the way these cases
should be decided because there lays an absence of a definitive ruling of the
Supreme Court. It is with that idea why this paper was focused primarily on the
current state of cyberlibel in the Philippines.
Due to the lack of jurisprudence with the subject matter, the questions as
to how cyberlibel could and should be correctly and properly applied in the
Philippines, remain unanswerable. Yet, this paper offered the debate of Hart and
Dworkin on how courts may choose to decide on cyberlibel cases in the future.
Sadly, foreign jurisdictions do not offer much help in guiding Philippine
treatment of cyberlibel. They all have differing treatments, or use laws, which are
not applicable in the Philippines, as basis. In fact, as seen above, some of the
jurisdictions pay no heed to issues inherent here.
This is why the Philippines should learn and apply the principle that any
law or Supreme Court ruling that deals with cyberlibel must take notice of the
constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression.49 This is also why our
legislature should come up with a law that clarifies online crimes, specifically
cyber libel.
Until then, we must remain hopeful that despite the confusing situation
cyberlibel is in, the public should remain careful of what they do online.

49 See generally Chavez, 514 SCRA at 293.