Curtailing Free Expression, Opinion and Information Online in Southeast Asia the ICCPR, which requires all State parties to take steps to ensure domestic laws are in line with the Covenant.120 Notably, in contravention of the recommendations of the UN Human Rights Committee, a newer law was introduced in the Philippines to extend criminalization of defamation to the online sphere. The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (‘CPA’) not only extends this criminal offence to online expression or communication, but in fact increases the penalty for libel to nine years’ imprisonment for libel committed online.121 The Philippine Supreme Court has released guidelines on the imposition of penalties for libel cases which urge a “preference for the imposition of fine only rather than imprisonment in libel cases”.122 These guidelines do not have the force of law, however, and so do not preclude the imposition of an imprisonment sentence. They also apply only to certain select circumstances, and do not clarify that protection of the rights to free expression and information is a sufficient defence for libel.123 Myanmar In Myanmar, section 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law (‘section 66(d)’) has been widely abused to impose criminal penalties on individuals who merely exercise their rights to free expression, opinion and information online, since its coming into force in 2013. Section 66(d), as amended in August 2017, is a provision that is on its face not human rights compliant. It prohibits defamation of any person “using any telecommunications network” with a penalty of up to two years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to 1mil. Kyat (approx. USD 652) or both.124 Cases brought under section 66(d) by military officials have often, in recent times, been combined with charges under section 505(a) of Myanmar’s Penal 120 CCPR/C/103/D/1815/2008, pp. 10, 11, paras 4 to 7; p.12. 121 See Section V below, for further analysis of the CPA. See also ICJ, ‘Righting Wrongs: Criminal Law Provisions in the Philippines related to National Security and their Impact on Human Rights Defenders’, pp. 17, 18, Available at: https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/PhilippinesCriminal-Law-Provisions-Publications-Report-2015-ENG.pdf 122 Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, ‘Administrative Circular No. 08-2008: Guidelines in the Observance of a Rule of Preference in the Imposition of Penalties in Libel Cases’, Available at: https://www. lawphil.net/courts/supreme/ac/ac_8_2008.html 123 Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, ‘Administrative Circular No. 08-2008: Guidelines in the Observance of a Rule of Preference in the Imposition of Penalties in Libel Cases’, Available at: https://www. lawphil.net/courts/supreme/ac/ac_8_2008.html 124 English translation of Telecommunications Law (The Pyidaungsu Hluttaw Law No. 31, 2013) (‘Telecommunications Law’), Available at: http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs23/2013-10-08Telecommunications_Law-en.pdf; English translation of Amendment of Telecommunications Law (2017/ Pyi Htaung Su Hluttaw Law No.26), Available at: http://freeexpressionmyanmar.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/01/Telecommunications-Law-Amendment-EN.pdf 45