Wikileaks in the Philippines?

In 2010, although already in existence for more than four years, Wikileaks became the center of international media attention when it began releasing through the internet, information which are considered by the US government as sensitive and highly classified. These includes among others, a video (dubbed as Collateral Murder) taken by a U.S. attack helicopter, showing what sounded like a trigger-happy crew killing civilians alongside their intended targets, cables from US embassy, other documents such as Pentagon Reports and War Logs in Iraq and Afghanistan. The releases were staggered and rather anticipated in the later part. But the US government did not waste a second in condemning the act with a simultaneous threat of legal actions against the organization in general and to its founder, Julian Assange in particular. Amongst the law alleged to have been violated in connection with such releases were the Espionage Act of 1917, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and Conspiracy. However, to date, with the clear absence of factual and legal bases needed to establish the violations alleged, the threat remains as it was, an act of desperate intimidation. The act which is clearly within the ambit of the freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed by no less than the First Amendment to the US Constitution and a catena of jurisprudence some of which are almost in four square with the controversy makes the Administration think twice about pursuing their threat of legal actions. As the US Supreme Court put it in the context of considering criminal liability of a broadcaster who had broadcast illegal materials, the First Amendment does not permit prosecution of a journalist transmitting truthful information of public interest “absent a need of the highest order.” It is well settled in US jurisdiction that a journalist who passively receives illegally obtained information is privileged to publish it.

Considering the above predicament, the US government resorted to what can be called extra-legal means or avenues by applying pressure on private companies to stop providing services to Wikileaks on pain of possible legal prosecution. Technically termed as the distributive denial of service (DDoS) attack, the US government indirectly threatened those companies which provide services to wikileaks with potential legal liability and loss of business opportunity if they continue transacting with wikileaks. One by one, EveryDNS, Amazon, OVH, Pay Pal, Visa, Master, and Bank of America discontinued their services to wikileaks.

Is it possible to do a “wikileaks” here in the Philippines?

Not only is it possible, I think it is quite probable. Our present Constitution undoubtedly is patterned to the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights is almost an adaptation of that of its counterpart in the US, including especially and pertinently that concerning freedom of speech, and of the press. We have in fact cited as an authority US jurisprudence relating to this rights guaranteed by the constitution.

Can anyone post anything for or against the government or private corporations?

Posting and or releasing information in the internet is not entirely a matter of right. The Bill of Rights is not without its limitations. As may be gleaned from the Wikileaks experience, the government will not take anything of such nature as national security and interest sitting down. Somehow, Wikileaks is lucky the justice system in the US gives utmost respect to the First Amendment and considers its curtailment possible only in cases of the highest order. In the Philippines, the situation shall we say is not totally in the same category as that of the US. Now and then we can hear some anomaly in the judicial system. This is without saying that we are not

protected, but still there is always the possibility that we may not be as lucky as wikileaks when we do what it did in this country.

At the very least, let it be noted that wikileaks is able to escape criminal prosecution in the US because of the fact that what it did is not illegal under the present legal setting. As already pointed out, there is no law prohibiting the publication of passively received albeit illegally obtained truthful information of public interest. Anything outside this classification is another story. For example, if the publisher actively participated or is himself the one who procured the information through illegal means would be criminally liable. Also in situations that include the journalist knowing both that the information would cause imminent harm and that it did not have high public value.

Finally, those who would dare undertake what wikileaks did may be in for a different class of “extra-legal measures” quite unlike that which was employed by the US Administration. The politico-social setting here in this country is not similar to the US. Whistleblower here usually suffers persecution or finds himself alone after the issue has been forgotten or overtaken by another controversy.