Fake Academic Credentials on Social Media: Legal Implications Explored

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo

THE recent scandal involving Miecha Angeli M. Bisnar’s false claim of receiving a high thesis grade in the Juris Doctor Program at St. Mary’s College of Tagum (SMCT) reveals a disturbing trend in the misuse of social media to fabricate academic achievements. This incident not only underscores the potential for misinformation to spread rapidly but also raises serious legal and ethical questions about accountability and integrity in the digital age.

Social Media’s Shadow Side

Social media platforms have become fertile ground for individuals seeking to embellish or outright falsify their accomplishments. The anonymity and vast reach of these platforms can turn a single misleading post into a widely accepted “fact” within hours. Celebrated examples of such deception include the case of Belle Gibson, who falsely claimed to have cured her cancer through alternative therapies and amassed a large following and substantial financial gains before her deceit was uncovered. Another example is the infamous “Instagram influencer” who pretended to live a lavish lifestyle funded by travel and luxury brands, only to be exposed as having fabricated her entire online persona.

In Bisnar’s case, her claim of achieving a 1.05 grade for a thesis in a non-thesis Juris Doctor program at SMCT exemplifies the ease with which false information can be propagated and the potential damage it can cause to the reputations of individuals and institutions alike.

Bisnar Under Legal Scrutiny

From a legal standpoint, Bisnar’s actions could be scrutinized under several provisions of Philippine law. The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines criminalizes falsification of documents under Article 172, which applies to private individuals who commit any act of falsification by fabricating, altering, or simulating any writing or document. Additionally, Article 154 penalizes the publication of false news that may endanger public order or cause damage to the interest or credit of the state.

Moreover, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175) broadens the scope of these offenses to include acts committed through information and communications technologies. Section 4(c)(4) specifically addresses online libel, which encompasses defamatory statements made through digital platforms.

Philippine Supreme Court precedents, such as the ruling in Disini v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 203335), have upheld the constitutionality of the Cybercrime Prevention Act, affirming the state’s interest in regulating harmful online behavior without infringing on free speech rights.

Expected Defenses from Bisnar

In her defense, Bisnar might argue that her social media post was a form of expression protected under the right to free speech. She could claim that the post was not intended to deceive but was instead a misguided attempt at self-promotion. The Philippine Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression under Article III, Section 4.

Additionally, Bisnar might invoke the defense of lack of intent to defraud. She could argue that the post did not result in any tangible harm or loss to the college or any third parties, and thus does not meet the threshold for criminal liability.

The Supreme Court, in cases like Chavez v. Gonzales (G.R. No. 168338), has consistently emphasized the need to balance the right to free speech with the responsibility to prevent harm. However, the Court has also recognized that freedom of expression is not absolute, especially when it intersects with issues of public interest and safety.

Barok’s Unbiased Assessment

The strength of the case against Bisnar largely depends on the evidence demonstrating her intent to deceive and the actual harm caused by her actions. The fact that she falsely claimed to have received a grade in a non-thesis program suggests a deliberate attempt to mislead the public about her academic credentials. The college’s unequivocal statement and the public nature of the deception support the argument that Bisnar’s actions were both intentional and harmful.

On the other hand, the defense could question the proportionality of the response to Bisnar’s actions, arguing that the legal consequences should match the level of actual harm caused. If no substantial damage to the college’s reputation or financial loss can be demonstrated, Bisnar’s liability might be mitigated.

Conclusion

The Bisnar case serves as a chilling exposé of social media’s ability to manipulate public opinion, underscoring the urgent need for digital accountability. While freedom of expression is paramount, it cannot shield individuals or entities from the consequences of deliberate deception. As this case unfolds, it forces us to confront the delicate equilibrium between unfettered speech and the preservation of truth. Legal systems must adapt to the evolving digital landscape to ensure that platforms and users alike are held responsible for their actions.