News Ticker

Menu

Latest Post

Criminology

Crimes

Criminology School

Banking

Business

Recent Posts

PD No.90 Declaring Unlawful Rumor-Mongering and Spreading False Information

Friday, July 20, 2018 / No Comments
PD No.90

PD No.90


Somebody on my facebook page asked, Is there a law in the Philippines 
penalizing the deliberate spreading of fake news or fake information.


I searched my old law books and I came across this law enacted during the term
of President Ferdinand Marcos.


It is a Presidential Decree. Laws decreed by President Marcos during the martial
law were called Presidential decree.


Fake news by the way is defined as a type of yellow journalism or propaganda
that consists of deliberate misinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional
print and broadcast news media or online social media.


This false information is mainly distributed by social media, but is periodically
circulated through mainstream media. Fake news is written and published with
the intent to mislead in order to damage an agency, entity, or person, and/or
gain financially or politically, often using sensationalist, dishonest,
or outright fabricated headlines to increase readership, online sharing,
and Internet click revenue.


Spreading rumors or false news is punishable under Philippine law.


Presidential Decree No.90 penalizes the deliberate spreading of fake news
with imprisonment.



Here is the complete text of the law.


PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No.90 January 6, 1973

DECLARING UNLAWFUL RUMOR-MONGERING AND SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION

WHEREAS, a primordial objective of Proclamation No. 1081 dated September 21, 1972
is the early restoration of peace, order and tranquility throughout the country;

WHEREAS, one of the most insidious means of disrupting such peace, order and
tranquility is the utterance, publication, distribution, circulation and
spread of rumors, false news or information and gossip that cause divisive
effects among the people, discredit of or distrust for the duly constituted
authorities and/or that undermine the stability of the government and
the objectives of the New Society and, therefore, inimical to the best
interests of the State;

WHEREAS, to attain the aforesaid primordial objective of Proclamation No. 1081,
it is imperative that such acts be curbed and penalized;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, in my capacity as Commander-in-Chief
of all the Armed Forces of the Philippines and pursuant to Proclamation
No. 1081 dated September 21, 1972, do hereby order and decree that any
person who shall offer, publish, distribute, circulate and spread rumors,
false news and information and gossip, or cause the publication,
distribution, circulation or spreading of the same, which cause or
tend to cause panic, divisive effects among the people, discredit
of or distrust for the duly constituted authorities, undermine the
stability of the Government and the objectives of the New Society,
endanger the public order, or cause damage to the interest or credit
of the State shall, upon conviction, be punished by prision correccional.
In case the offender is a government official or employee, the accessory
penalty of absolute perpetual disqualification from holding any public
office shall be imposed.


Done in the City of Manila, this 6th day of January, in the year of Our Lord,
nineteen hundred and seventy-three.


Prision correctional has a duration of imprisonment from 6 months and 1 day
to 6 years.


Worth reading also is art.154 of the revised penal code which has something to do
with fake news.


Art.154 penalizes the publication or as news any false news which may endanger
the public order.


Salient Features of RA 11053 or The Anti-Hazing Act of 2018

Thursday, July 12, 2018 / No Comments
ra 11053
RA 11053

President Rodrigo Duterte signed RA 11053 or The Anti-Hazing Act of 2018.



RA 11053 is an act prohibiting hazing and regulating other forms of initiation
rites of fraternities,sororities and other organizations.



This new law amends RA 8049 or the Anti Hazing Act.



Republic Act 11053 or the Anti-Hazing Act of 2018 gives teeth to the previous
1995 version of the law as it now outrightly prohibits and makes hazing a
criminal act while providing more substantial penalties for those who
will be proven guilty.


What are the salient features of the new law, RA 11053?


1. The new law imposes penalties such as reclusion perpetua and up
to P3 million in fines.


2. Under the new law, the definition of hazing has been expanded to include
"physical or psychological suffering, harm or injury inflicted on a recruit,
member, neophyte, or applicant" as a prerequisite for admission or for continued
membership in an organization.



3. Banned under the law are "all forms of hazing" not only in fraternities,
sororities or organizations in schools, but also those in communities and even
businesses and uniformed service learning institutions.


4. The law also requires schools to be "more active and proactive" in regulating
school-based initiation rites, with schools required to exercise reasonable
supervision and take proactive steps to protect students from danger of
participating in activities that will involve hazing.


5. All members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who participated in
unauthorized initiation rites, even if no hazing was conducted, shall be punished
accordingly. Persons who had knowledge of any hazing acts committed but failed to
report it to the authorities or those to be found guilty of hiding, concealing or
hampering or obstructing investigation should be penalized.

Liabilities include:

* penalty of reclusion temporal and P1 million on the participating officer and
members of the fraternity who were involved in the hazing * reclusion perpetua
 and P2 million on members who actually participated in hazing when under the
influence of alcohol or drugs; and on non-resident or alumni who participate
in hazing * reclusion perpetua and P3 million on those who participated in
hazing that resulted in death, rape, sodomy, or mutilation * P1 million on
the school if it approved an initiation of a fraternity, sorority or
organization where hazing occurred * prision correccional (six months to six years)
on anyone who intimidates or threatens another for recruitment.
This includes "persistent and repeated" proposals or invitations to those who
refused to join at least twice. * P1 million for former officers or alumni who
try to hide or obstruct investigation

If the offender is a member of the Bar, he or she shall be subject to
disciplinary proceedings by the Supreme Court. If the offender is in another
profession, he or she will be subject to regulation by the Professional
Regulation Commission.


6. Senator Ping Lacson, a former PNP Chief sponsored this law.


SC Grants Request for Transfer of Venue of The Case People vs. Atty.Isidore

Monday, July 2, 2018 / No Comments
Transfer of Venue | Image Credit
SC grants transfer of venue of the illegal drug cases vs. ex-NBI anti-drug unit head Eric Isidro
and 8 others from Virac RTC to Makati RTC


The Supreme Court grants the request of then DOJ Secretary of Justice Vitaliano Aguirre
requesting the transfer of venue of criminal cases No.6527 (People vs. Atty.Augusto Eric C.
Isidoro, criminal case No.6528 (People vs. Paulo Uy,et.al.)
criminal case No.6529 and criminal case No.6530.


The Supreme Court directed the branch clerk of court, Regional trial court (RTC)
branch 43, Virac, Catanduanes, to forward the records of the aforesaid criminal cases
to the office of the executive judge,RTC, makati City.


Atty.Isidoro is a former NBI Regional Director of Central Mindanao.


Isidoro is being identified as the owner of the 1,000-square meter property where the
shabu laboratory was built and discovered.


Isidoro allegedly owns the  lot in Virac where the alleged shabu laboratory , according to the NBI.


For purposes of the criminology board examination, remember this:


The Supreme Court may order the change of venue of trial of criminal proceedings
provided that the initiation should commence from the place where the crime was committed.


Section 15, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides that subject to existing laws,
the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the city or
municipality or territory where the offense was committed or any of its essential
elements occurred.


It may be noted, however, that under Section 5(4), Article VIII of the Constitution,
the Supreme Court shall have the power to order a change of venue or place of trial to
avoid miscarriage of justice.