TOWARDS the end of 2017, when the government was waging its notorious war against illegal drugs, an online community called “Silent No More PH” called senators aligned with the majority bloc “Malacañang dogs” for allegedly not signing a resolution calling on the government to stop killing minors.
The blog identified then Senate President Koko Pimentel, and Sens. Vicente “Tito” Sotto III, Richard Gordon, Cynthia Villar, Manny Pacquiao, Migs Zubiri, and Gringo Honasan as the senators who “will block any action that would investigate the sins of the government. These are the senators whose silence leads to continuous murder of poor and innocent children.”
***
Sotto reacted by filing a criminal complaint for cyber libel against Edward Angelo “Cocoy” Dayao whom he identified to be the person behind the Silent No More blog and Facebook page.
In its decision last week, the Regional Trial Court of Pasay found Dayao guilty of violating Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act on cyber libel and sentenced him to a minimum of two years and five months and a maximum of four years and five months in prison.
The court said that “the court sufficiently established that the accused is the publisher of the subject article. That such a defamatory article was published is beyond dispute.”
It also said that malice is presumed from the imputation branding the private complainant. “As such, the element of malice is also indubitably presumed,” the court added.
***
It is a basic human right to espouse an opinion.
An opinion is lodged in the mind. It is exclusive to the individual holding it and can stay in the mind until it is manifested by word, by action or inaction.
Opinions are important tools in making decisions. Seeing that the fish is fresh is an impression that can lead to the opinion that the peddler’s asking price is just right. Buying the fish is the expression of that opinion.
An aggressive advertising campaign can help push consumers to a positive opinion that will lead to the commercial success of a product.
***
Four men are sipping wine and discussing political developments among themselves.
One of the men says he thinks Senator Sotto is Duterte’s lapdog for kowtowing to the latter’s policies. The other man engages him by saying that drug addicts are the scourge of society.
They agree to disagree.
Will we prosecute the first man for slandering a senator because his opinion is not palatable? After all, three other people heard his opinion.
***
The freedom to express one’s opinion is essential in the exchange of ideas. It is an important adjunct to a democratic way of life.
Whether we like it or not, elective officials are products that sell themselves every election period. A winning mandate reflects a favorable collective opinion – correctly or incorrectly.
Once elected to office, however, they become fodder to public opinion that is not necessarily flattering to them. This is because public office is a public trust. Every public official is accountable to the people who expect that the trust they have invested is not wasted or abused.
An elected official is public property. Public office is not for the onion-skinned./PN
