The improper forum

MANILA, Philippines - Like “good governance” and “national interest,” the government in recent times – regardless of administration – has a penchant for the phrase, “proper forum.” And in light of the Cybercrime Law, it was, rather ironically, presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda who called on (in another twist of irony) Anonymous Philippines to “bring their protests to the proper forum,” right after the latter defaced some government websites.

While I don’t condone hacking, I don’t coddle or subscribe to the politics of “the proper forum” either. Those who defend the Cybercrime Law – not the least of which would be Lacierda and deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte – would have you believe that this law was passed because of the inaction of the public. We should have gone to the Senate and to the House of Representatives, apparently, when this law was passed. We should have made more noise. So apparently, the passage of the Cybercrime Law is my fault, your fault, and everyone else’s fault: this evil triumphed because none of us did anything. At this point, we should take things to “the proper forum.”

But what forum, may I ask, is open for you and me? Can I ask the President’s secretary to set an appointment so that we can talk over my objections to the Cybercrime Law over a cup of coffee? Could I challenge senators – say, Tito Sotto – to a debate on the Senate floor on the matter of a Cybercrime Law? Could I raise my hand in the halls of the Supreme Court and be recognized by Chief Justice Sereno to give a dissenting opinion on the constitutionality of the Cybercrime Law and how this implementation of libel laws and other regulations abridges my right to free speech? Does this mean that Rep. Raymund Palatino raising a ruckus about the evils of this bill wasn’t enough for a recognition that we, who are opposed to this bill, have written about it years ago? Do we need to appear on a talk show or have 10 or so bloggers have a lunch with senators in their offices or some Chinese restaurant somewhere, and have photo ops after, for us to blog about it?

Short answer: no.

Defacing websites is as proper a forum as it can get for Anonymous Philippines, if only because the group wants its message to be heard. And the same thing goes for every Twitter user, Facebook user, and blogger who has expressed vehement opposition to the Cybercrime Law. The Internet as proper a forum as a “proper forum” could get. If the law affects the online universe, shouldn’t the engagement be online?

The opposition against the Cybercrime Law comes from something that should be obvious: that while people are willing to be subjected to laws that set expectations on their responsibilities, people are not willing to be subjected to laws that impinge on their rights. The same goes for the “proper forum:” people are more than willing to be active participants in government, but this active participation can only be as reasonable with respect to the other roles they have to fulfill. Unless, of course, government thinks that the proper forum is a game of power relations, than one of engaging with the people in the town hall.

What’s even more frustrating is that in 2008, Edwin Lacierda, Manuel Quezon III, and a group of bloggers – including myself – recognized the need for audacity in a democratic space when we filed a motion for intervention that asserted that Gloria Arroyo should also be impeached for the BJE-MOA. In 2009, when Congress railroaded HR 1109 to amend the Constitution, the battle was fought in social media, with the recognition that 170 Congressmen didn’t have any shame. For those who disagreed with us, we weren’t in the proper forum for this one either. And this was before a time of viral things and Sotto-copies and social media brand ambassadors and what have you. This was the political climate of the Internet that, in many ways, brought this administration to power. It was the recognition that the proper forum is nothing more than free speech. In this case, free speech on the Internet.

And that, my friends, is the proper forum, as far as I’m concerned. When we enact the Cybercrime Law, we limit the “proper forum” to the high places we’re not allowed in, to the avenues we can’t maximize, to rights to free speech tied down to unreasonable responsibilities. It is misleading for government to imply that the “proper forum” is the Senate, or the mass media, or places where the ordinary citizen can’t be part of, because he or she is powerless to be there. And in line with the past few weeks that we’ve been talking about “social media for social good,” shouldn’t the social good that is the democratic expression of dissent take place in social media?

Of course it should. That’s as proper a forum as it gets.