Dear Attorney,

I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to seek your professional guidance regarding a deeply distressing matter. A TikTok video that I previously deleted has been reposted by another individual on Facebook, accompanied by comments that are negatively impacting my mental and emotional well-being. I have repeatedly appealed to this person to remove the post, but my pleas have been ignored. The situation has caused significant distress not only to me but also to my family and friends, as the comments associated with the reposted video are hurtful and damaging.

My humble request is for assistance in clarifying my rights under Philippine law and the possible legal measures I can take to protect myself from further harm. I would be very grateful for any advice or recommendations you can provide on how best to move forward in addressing this situation, including potential remedies, relevant legal provisions, and steps to ensure this unauthorized and harmful content is taken down.

Thank you for considering my request. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and guidance on this matter.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Individual

COMPREHENSIVE LEGAL ARTICLE ON UNAUTHORIZED POSTING OF DELETED TIKTOK VIDEO IN THE PHILIPPINES

In the Philippines, the unauthorized posting or re-posting of an individual’s personal content, particularly if it has been previously deleted or withdrawn from public circulation, raises several legal issues. These concerns revolve around defamation, privacy rights, mental health considerations, and the broader social and legal repercussions of cyber harassment. This comprehensive article will discuss the range of legal concepts, remedies, and procedural steps available under Philippine law for individuals who find themselves in similar predicaments.

1. Introduction to the Legal Framework

Philippine jurisprudence and statutory laws provide multiple avenues of protection against the unauthorized posting of content that infringes on privacy, dignity, and reputation. Key laws and regulations that may come into play include:

Revised Penal Code on Libel (Articles 353–355): This is the traditional legal backbone in the Philippines for punishing defamatory statements made publicly, whether in print or broadcast.
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175): This expands libel to the online realm, introducing the concept of cyber libel, which can carry stricter penalties than traditional libel.
Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 386): This law provides the basis for claims of moral damages, exemplary damages, and other forms of compensation for violations of privacy or goodwill.
Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 (Republic Act No. 9995): This penalizes unauthorized recording, reproduction, and distribution of photos or videos that are personal in nature and taken without consent.
Data Privacy Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10173): This protects personal information, including images and videos, from unauthorized processing or disclosure.
Safe Spaces Act (Republic Act No. 11313): This seeks to penalize various forms of harassment, including those committed through the use of technology.

Because TikTok videos and Facebook posts occur in the realm of social media, the overarching context involves digital platforms. Thus, a harmed individual can also explore administrative remedies by contacting the platform providers, such as Facebook’s reporting mechanisms, to request or demand the removal of the offending content.

2. The Nature of the Injury: Emotional Distress and Mental Health

In cases involving reposted videos with damaging comments, the injured party often experiences emotional distress, anxiety, and mental health consequences. The Philippines recognizes psychological or emotional harm as a valid basis for claiming damages. Under the Civil Code, moral damages may be awarded to those who suffer mental anguish, serious anxiety, and similar emotional suffering due to an unlawful act or omission by another party.

When content that has been deliberately deleted from social media is reposted by an unauthorized individual without consent, and with insulting or defamatory commentary, the act can fall under legal definitions of online harassment or cyberbullying. In turn, such an act could open the violator to both civil and criminal liability, depending on the specific provisions triggered.

3. Defamation and Libel Laws in the Philippines

Definition of Libel: Under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, libel is defined as “public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person.” Libel can be committed in writing, print, or any other similar means.
Cyber Libel: The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 introduced cyber libel as an offense. Section 4(c)(4) defines cyber libel as libel “committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.” As social media platforms are computer-based channels, reposting an individual’s video with defamatory statements or insinuations can be classified as cyber libel if it meets the required elements:
- Malice: The action was done intentionally to harm or discredit the complainant.
- Publication: The defamatory statement or content must be published, i.e., made public on a social media platform.
- Identifiability: The subject of the defamation (the harmed individual) must be identifiable from the statements or images.
- Defamatory Imputation: The content must cast dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon the subject.
Higher Penalties: Under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, penalties for cyber libel are typically one degree higher than those for traditional libel. This means that the malicious publication of a defamatory statement online may be met with more stringent legal consequences than print-based or broadcast-based defamation.
Defenses Against Libel: In the event of litigation, possible defenses against libel include truth (if the statements are accurate and presented with good motives and justifiable ends), privileged communication (if the publication is covered by absolute or qualified privilege, such as fair comment on matters of public interest), and lack of malice. However, in a situation where an individual’s deleted personal video is reposted with harmful commentary, these defenses are less likely to apply.

4. Remedies for Defamation and Cyber Libel

An aggrieved party can pursue any or all of the following remedies in cases of defamation or cyber libel:

Criminal Complaints: The individual may file a criminal complaint with the prosecutor’s office. Accompanied by relevant evidence (screenshots, links, witness affidavits), this complaint can lead to an investigation and possible criminal charges against the poster.
Civil Complaints: Separately or in conjunction with the criminal complaint, the aggrieved party can file a civil action for damages under Article 26, Article 19, and related provisions in the Civil Code that safeguard personal dignity and privacy. This can include moral, exemplary, and even nominal damages.
Protective Orders: While not specific to libel, courts may issue interim measures or injunctions prohibiting the further sharing or posting of the harmful content during the pendency of the trial, particularly where irreparable harm to the complainant’s emotional well-being is demonstrated.

5. Relevance of the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (R.A. 10173)

The Data Privacy Act protects personal information, including photos, videos, or any details about an individual’s identity. Under the law, the unauthorized processing of personal data—including the reproduction and posting of a private video—could violate several provisions if the data subject (the person in the video) did not consent to its distribution. Specifically:

Scope of Coverage: The Act covers both automated and manual processing of personal data when it is part of a filing system or intended to be. Videos on social media platforms may constitute personal data if they identify an individual.
Consent: Under the Data Privacy Act, consent from the data subject is necessary for the processing of personal information. If a person withdraws consent by deleting a video, continued or renewed publication of said material may fall under unauthorized processing, which carries penalties.
Right to Object and Erasure: The law grants individuals the right to object to the processing of their personal data. A right to erasure or blocking also applies if the data is being unlawfully processed. Failure by the uploader to heed requests to remove the content could strengthen a complaint before the National Privacy Commission (NPC).
Filing Complaints with the NPC: Individuals may file a complaint with the NPC if they believe their data privacy rights have been violated. The NPC can investigate, and if it finds merit, recommend the filing of criminal charges or impose administrative fines.

6. The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act (R.A. 9995)

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act (R.A. 9995) penalizes the act of taking, copying, reproducing, or sharing photos or videos without the subject’s consent, especially if the content is of a private nature. Although this law is often invoked in instances of sexual content, it also broadly covers other intrusive or unauthorized recordings and subsequent distribution:

Elements of the Offense:
- The photo or video must be taken under circumstances in which the person in it could reasonably expect privacy, or
- It is a private video or image not intended for public distribution.
Prohibited Acts: The law prohibits the copying or reproduction of a video without consent, and the selling or publishing of such content on the internet is likewise disallowed.
Application: Even if the TikTok video was initially public, the fact that the original poster decided to delete it may be interpreted as an expression of withdrawal of consent for its further circulation. If it was also accompanied by malicious commentary, the re-poster may face additional legal liabilities.

7. The Safe Spaces Act (R.A. 11313)

Enacted in 2019, the Safe Spaces Act broadens the scope of protection against sexual harassment and gender-based harassment in streets, public spaces, online spaces, and workplaces. Although typically associated with gender-based offenses, it can also protect individuals from online harassment and cyberbullying. Relevant sections cover unwelcome comments or publications that cause emotional distress to the victim. If the malicious comments associated with the reposted TikTok video are deemed forms of cyber harassment, the Safe Spaces Act may be invoked.

8. Civil Code Provisions and Damage Claims

Apart from the specific laws outlined above, the Civil Code offers broad protections for individuals whose rights to privacy, dignity, or honor have been violated. Examples include:

Article 19: Mandates that “every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.” This provision imposes a general obligation on individuals to respect the rights of others.
Article 26: Specifically addresses privacy, ensuring that “every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons.”
Moral Damages (Articles 2217–2220): Allows an aggrieved party to claim monetary compensation for mental anguish, wounded feelings, serious anxiety, social humiliation, or similar injuries.
Exemplary Damages (Articles 2229–2235): Punitive in nature and awarded in cases of egregious wrongdoing, meant to deter future misconduct.

When a video is reposted, especially after its original poster has tried to remove it from public view, it may constitute a breach of the individual’s right to privacy and a violation of the principle of good faith, entitling the injured party to damages.

9. Immediate Non-Litigation Remedies

Before pursuing litigation, there are practical steps that an aggrieved individual can take to address the issue:

Reporting the Content to Facebook: The individual can use Facebook’s reporting mechanism. By flagging the post as harassing or infringing content, there is a possibility Facebook will remove it based on violations of community standards.
Sending a Formal Demand Letter: Through legal counsel, one can send a demand letter to the person who reposted the video, asking for the immediate removal of the content under threat of legal action.
Cease and Desist Notice: Similar in function to a demand letter, a cease and desist notice explicitly warns the offending party that further posting or sharing of the content may lead to litigation.
Documenting the Evidence: It is critical to save screenshots, chat logs, or any other relevant communications showing that you requested removal and that the content remains live. This documentation is vital for establishing the factual basis of the complaint, including the element of malice in a cyber libel case.

10. Filing a Criminal Complaint

If informal efforts fail, the injured party may consider filing a criminal complaint. The basic steps include:

Gathering Evidence: Compile digital evidence such as screenshots, URLs, archived web pages, and statements from witnesses who can verify the posting.
Drafting a Complaint Affidavit: The complaint affidavit must detail the events, including the date you discovered the unauthorized post, the attempts to request its removal, the specific malicious statements, and the harm caused.
Submission to the Prosecutor’s Office: The complaint affidavit and supporting evidence are then submitted to the Office of the City or Provincial Prosecutor with jurisdiction.
Preliminary Investigation: The prosecutor will summon the respondent for counter-affidavits. After reviewing evidence from both sides, the prosecutor decides whether to file formal charges in court.
Court Proceedings: If probable cause is found, the case proceeds to trial. Cyber libel and related charges under the Cybercrime Prevention Act can lead to imprisonment, fines, or both.

11. Filing a Civil Complaint for Damages

In addition or as an alternative to criminal proceedings, a civil suit for damages may be filed:

Basis: Articles 19, 20, 26, and 2176 of the Civil Code may be used to justify a claim for damages in relation to the unauthorized posting and resulting emotional distress or reputational damage.
Complaint: Draft a complaint specifying the factual background, the specific violations alleged, and the relief sought (e.g., moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees).
Litigation: If the court finds that the reposting of the deleted TikTok video infringed upon your legal rights, it may order the defendant to pay damages and issue a permanent injunction against further sharing.

12. Administrative Complaints: National Privacy Commission

For violations of privacy rights, one can file a complaint with the National Privacy Commission:

Grounds: If the posting of the video is deemed to be unauthorized processing of personal data or a breach of privacy under the Data Privacy Act.
Procedure: A complaint is filed before the NPC with supporting evidence. The NPC may attempt conciliation or mediation, and if unsuccessful, proceed with a formal investigation.
Possible Outcomes: The NPC can recommend criminal charges, impose administrative fines, or direct the infringer to take corrective actions such as content removal.

13. Other Legal Instruments

Writ of Habeas Data: This special proceeding is sometimes used to protect an individual’s privacy in cases of misuse of personal data. Though more commonly applied in contexts of extrajudicial killings or enforced disappearances, it can, in theory, be invoked to address wrongful or unauthorized collection and use of personal data.
Writ of Amparo: Typically utilized to protect constitutional rights to life, liberty, and security, it may only be tangentially applicable unless there is a credible threat to the physical safety of the individual involved.

14. Strategies to Protect Oneself and Mitigate Harm

Self-Help via Social Media Settings: While the original poster has limited direct control over another individual’s Facebook profile, using the platform’s privacy settings can minimize exposure to or sharing of personal videos in the future.
Pursue Social and Emotional Support: Seek help from mental health professionals, friends, and family. Emotional distress from cyber harassment is a legitimate public health concern, and professional counseling or therapy may be essential.
Engaging an IT Expert: Sometimes, advanced knowledge or digital forensics can assist in gathering evidence, especially if the re-poster is employing sophisticated means to hide their identity.
Legal Counsel: Consulting a lawyer experienced in cyber laws and data privacy is critical. Legal counsel can recommend the best avenues for immediate relief, whether a criminal complaint, civil action for damages, or administrative recourse.

15. Potential Obstacles and Considerations

Jurisdictional Issues: If the re-poster is located abroad, enforcing Philippine laws can be more complex. However, if the content is accessible in the Philippines and defames a Philippine resident, local courts can still exercise jurisdiction.
Evidence Preservation: Digital evidence must be carefully preserved in a manner acceptable in Philippine courts. Make sure to keep original screenshots with timestamps or use third-party archiving services.
Length of Proceedings: Court cases in the Philippines can be lengthy. Alternative dispute resolution methods like mediation or settlement can sometimes be more efficient, especially if the main goal is to have the content removed.
Retaliation: The offender may respond with counter-complaints or further harassment. Understanding these risks and working with legal counsel to prepare for them is advisable.

16. Conclusion

The unauthorized reposting of a deleted TikTok video on Facebook—especially when accompanied by harmful comments—constitutes a serious breach of personal rights under Philippine law. Various legal frameworks, from the Revised Penal Code on libel to the Cybercrime Prevention Act, the Data Privacy Act, the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act, and the Safe Spaces Act, can be activated to protect victims and hold violators accountable. The affected individual may consider pursuing several remedies, including criminal complaints for cyber libel, civil suits for damages, and administrative complaints before the National Privacy Commission.

In all situations, timely action is crucial. The victim should document all evidence, file a formal complaint with the relevant authorities, and engage a lawyer who specializes in Philippine cyber and data privacy laws. While legal remedies can take time, persistent effort, cooperation with law enforcement, and the support of mental health professionals can alleviate some of the stress inflicted by such forms of online harassment. Ultimately, holding accountable those who repost, share, or comment maliciously on another person’s withdrawn content is essential, not only to secure justice for the affected individual but also to reinforce responsible digital behavior in the broader community.