EDITORIAL

MUTED TRUTH

Defend Free Speech from Censorship

The Crusaders

Highlights:

• In the Regional Schools Press Conference (RSPC) 2026, Atty. Gilbert M. Dela Cerna highlights the illegal acts 
• Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld the constitutionality of most provisions of RA 10175
• RA 10175 expanded traditional libel under the Revised Penal Code to include acts committed online

In a country where social media serves as the modern public wall, the implementation of the Republic Act No. 10175 has filled the discourse of many. The law was designed to protect Filipino citizens in the digital age. Yet more than a decade later, it remains a source of fear and confusion, particularly among students and citizens who use online platforms to express their opinions and personal takes.

In the Regional Schools Press Conference (RSPC) 2026, Atty. Gilbert M. Dela Cerna highlights the illegal acts done under this RA, which are cyberbullying, online libel, identity theft, hacking, and cyber sex or online exploitation. While RA 10175 serves an important purpose, its vague and broad provisions, particularly on online libel pose serious risks to freedom of expression, especially for students and journalists. A law meant to defend digital spaces should not become a weapon that intimidates those who seek truth and accountability.

Protection and freedom must coexist. When regulation overreaches, it transforms from shield to sword. If students fear publishing investigative pieces and citizens hesitate to voice concerns online, then democracy itself is weakened.

RA 10175 expanded traditional libel under the Revised Penal Code to include acts committed online, often imposing harsher penalties. This means a Facebook post, a tweet, or even a shared article could potentially result in criminal liability. For campus journalists who expose irregularities within their institutions, the threat of cyber libel forced them to be silenced and step back from their duty or role.
Read More: significant distinctions of cyberlibel from traditional libel is the higher penalty imposed. 

In 2014, the Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld the constitutionality of most provisions of RA 10175, including online libel, though it struck down parts that violated freedom of expression. While the ruling clarified some areas, concerns remain over how the law can be used against activists
Read More: SC rules online libel constitutional

For students, the digital world is not separate from academic life, it is part of it. Research and publication now was thriving online. Campus publications rely heavily on digital platforms to reach audiences. If a single critical article could lead to legal threats, self-censorship becomes the safer choice. And when self-censorship prevails, accountability suffers, and with that it blurs the real essential of being a campus journalist.

Others might say that RA 10175 is necessary to combat the growing number of cybercrimes, online libel, identity theft, cyberbullying, and exploitation. Indeed, these threats are serious and demand legal action. Without regulation, the internet could become a lawless domain where victims have no protection. 

However, the solution to cybercrime should not compromise constitutional rights. The problem lies not in the intention of the law, but in its implementation and scope. Safeguards must be clearer. Definitions must be more precise. Enforcement must distinguish between malicious attacks and legitimate criticism. Protecting victims of cybercrime should not come at the expense of silencing watchdogs.

RA 10175 was created to secure the digital landscape of the Philippines. But security without clarity breeds fear. For students, journalists, and ordinary citizens, the internet is more than a platform, it is a voice. And a democracy without fearless voices cannot thrive.

The way forward is not to abolish the law, but to refine it. Lawmakers must revisit justice provisions, particularly on online libel, and strengthen protections for freedom of expression. 

Cybercrime must be punished. But criticism must not be criminalized. In defending our cyberspace, we must ensure we are not dismantling the very freedom it was meant to protect.