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 !hese includes
among others, a video "dubbed as Collateral Murder# taken by a US attack helico$ter, showing
what sounded like a trigger%ha$$y crew killing civilians alongside their intended targets, cables from
US embassy, other documents such as &entagon 'e$orts and War (ogs in Ira) and *fghanistan !he
releases were staggered and rather antici$ated in the later $art +ut the US government did not waste
a second in condemning the act with a simultaneous threat of legal actions against the organi,ation in
general and to its founder, -ulian *ssange in $articular *mongst the law alleged to have been
violated in connection with such releases were the .s$ionage *ct of 1/10, 1om$uter 2raud and
*buse *ct, and 1ons$iracy 3owever, to date, with the clear absence of factual and legal bases
needed to establish the violations alleged, the threat remains as it was, an act of des$erate
intimidation !he act which is clearly within the ambit of the freedom of s$eech and of the $ress
guaranteed by no less than the 2irst *mendment to the US 1onstitution and a catena of 4uris$rudence
some of which are almost in four s)uare with the controversy makes the *dministration think twice
about $ursuing their threat of legal actions *s the US Su$reme 1ourt $ut it in the context of
considering criminal liability of a broadcaster who had broadcast illegal materials, the 2irst
*mendment does not $ermit $rosecution of a 4ournalist transmitting truthful information of $ublic
interest 5absent a need of the highest order6 It is well settled in US 4urisdiction that a 4ournalist who
$assively receives illegally obtained information is $rivileged to $ublish it
1onsidering the above $redicament, the US government resorted to what can be called extra%
legal means or avenues by a$$lying $ressure on $rivate com$anies to sto$ $roviding services to
Wikileaks on $ain of $ossible legal $rosecution !echnically termed as the distributive denial of
service "77oS# attack, the US government indirectly threatened those com$anies which $rovide
services to wikileaks with $otential legal liability and loss of business o$$ortunity if they continue
transacting with wikileaks 8ne by one, .very79S, *ma,on, 8:3, &ay &al, :isa, ;aster, and +ank
of *merica discontinued their services to wikileaks
Is it $ossible to do a 5wikileaks6 here in the &hili$$ines<
9ot only is it $ossible, I think it is )uite $robable 8ur $resent 1onstitution undoubtedly is
$atterned to the US 1onstitution !he +ill of 'ights is almost an ada$tation of that of its counter$art
in the US, including es$ecially and $ertinently that concerning freedom of s$eech, and of the $ress
We have in fact cited as an authority US 4uris$rudence relating to this rights guaranteed by the
constitution
1an anyone $ost anything for or against the government or $rivate cor$orations<
&osting and or releasing information in the internet is not entirely a matter of right !he +ill
of 'ights is not without its limitations *s may be gleaned from the Wikileaks ex$erience, the
government will not take anything of such nature as national security and interest sitting down
Somehow, Wikileaks is lucky the 4ustice system in the US gives utmost res$ect to the 2irst
*mendment and considers its curtailment $ossible only in cases of the highest order In the
&hili$$ines, the situation shall we say is not totally in the same category as that of the US 9ow and
then we can hear some anomaly in the 4udicial system !his is without saying that we are not
$rotected, but still there is always the $ossibility that we may not be as lucky as wikileaks when we
do what it did in this country
*t the very least, let it be noted that wikileaks is able to esca$e criminal $rosecution in the
US because of the fact that what it did is not illegal under the $resent legal setting *s already
$ointed out, there is no law $rohibiting the $ublication of $assively received albeit illegally obtained
truthful information of $ublic interest *nything outside this classification is another story 2or
exam$le, if the $ublisher actively $artici$ated or is himself the one who $rocured the information
through illegal means would be criminally liable *lso in situations that include the 4ournalist
knowing both that the information would cause imminent harm and that it did not have high $ublic
value
2inally, those who would dare undertake what wikileaks did may be in for a different class of
5extra%legal measures6 )uite unlike that which was em$loyed by the US *dministration !he
$olitico%social setting here in this country is not similar to the US Whistleblower here usually suffers
$ersecution or finds himself alone after the issue has been forgotten or overtaken by another
controversy