legal commentary on cybercrime law

8/13/2019 Legal Commentary on Cybercrime Law

1/5

TURNING CRITICS INTO CRIMINALSA LEGAL COMMENTARY ON THE CYBERCRIME

PREVENTION ACT OF 2012

INTRODUCTION

The Philippines is a democratic country where freedom of speech is

ultimately safeguarded. The said right is enshrined in our 1987 constitution.

Article III, Section 4 of the Bill of Rights provides that: no law shall be passed

abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of

the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of

grievances. Consequently, the passage of R.A. No. 10175 or the Cybercrime

Prevention Act of 2012 was viewed as a threat against the countrys strong

advocacy to preserve the exercise of such right.

President Aquino signed into law R.A. No. 10175 on September 12, 2012

which provision penalizes a number of acts that may be committed only by

individuals who are involved in cyber-technology. Such passing stirred the

attention of netizens which eventually led to the submission of 15 petitions to

the Supreme Court calling for it to repeal or delete certain provisions of the said

law. The Supreme Court, in response to the outrage of the people, has imposedan indefinite temporary restraining order on R.A. No. 10175 pending the

resolution on its controversial provisions.


2/5

DISCUSSIONS

Hence, it is but right to discuss the legal implications of the new law

because it involves the members of the general public who probably are not

even well aware of the possible imprisonment or other penalties they may face

by writing something on their computers and uploading it through the internet.

The most sensationalized provision in the new law is provided in Section 4

(4) on the punishable acts which states that: the unlawful and prohibited act of

libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,

committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be

devised in the future. In connection with this, Article 355 of the RPC defines

libel as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real

or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstances tending to

cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to

blacken the memory of one who is dead. Although the Department of Justice,

already removed libel from the provisions of the law as part of its proposed

amendments to the Congress, such has not yet come into finality unless and untila new and improved Cybercrime Prevention Act shall be passed.

Thus, it is still proper to deal with it to fuel the netizens already raging

opposition and to better explain our hostility.

The provision of the new law which unwittingly extended the coverage of

the crime of libel into the public domain possesses a threat to our commentators

and bloggers on the internet which only banks their courage to point out wrong-

doings on the principle of exercising their freedom of expression. It bears also

to tackle on the matters concerning social media, such that of Facebook, where

the simple act of liking or sharing posts, status, articles, and photos that also

falls within the ambit of libel can possibly be deemed criminal. If this is the case,


3/5

are the courts ready to be flooded with numerous cases on cyber-libel? I dont

think so! Having a very vague law on cybercrime will be a great problem for the

judiciary in the future so to speak.

Some petitioners against the law even labeled R.A. No. 10175 as cyber

martial law because of the insertion of the provision on libel which for me

would directly mean that netizens should only post nice things on the internet

with the fear of being prosecuted in the end. It would generally impede the

check and balance in the society where people can question and criticize

objectively.

This would also touch the issue on double jeopardy due to the vague

delineation between its provision and that of the Revised Penal Code. More

specifically, as already mentioned above, is on ordinary libel versus cyber-libel

and that of rape provided in the RPC versus cybersex, etc.. If Maria, a minor,

sues Juan for rape at present and later on finds out that a video of such incident

was uploaded in the internet, will another case for cybersex or child

pornography prosper? Or more importantly, will Juan be prosecuted again based

on R.A. No. 10175?

Others also say that the penal provision of the law has its retroactive

effect in violation of our constitutional right against the retroactivity of penal

laws, in which I strongly agree. This happens when old libelous accounts,

articles or posts in the internet are not withdrawn or deleted prior to the

effectivity of the law. It is a very likely scenario where a writer maintains an

article in his blog that he wrote 10 years ago, be used against him in the present

by way of the cybercrime law.

Section 19 of the law also provides that when a computer data is prima

facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this act, the Department of


4/5

Justice (DOJ) shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer,

thereby, violating the constitutional guarantee that no personshall be deprived

of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be

denied the equal protection of the laws. This provision, if not deleted or

amended shall be prone to the abuse of corrupt politicians that would like to

suppress informations and to keep the public blind on the real and disgusting

truth on the Philippine government and of our society itself.

Another problem being raised also pertains to questions on the possibility

of computer hacking where somebody may post libelous comments or articles

using the account of another. If this happens, how effective is the governmentssystem in detecting spurious accounts and in identifying the real culprits? In

connection with Section 19, would it be fair that a person be deprived of access

to his own account absent prior investigation because somebody hacked his

account and used it to post libelous comments?

It is also worthy to point out the penalties imposed on those crimes

committed online compared to their offline counterpart. This is evident in

Section 6 which provides thatall crimes defined and penalized by the Revised

Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through and with the

use of information and communications technologies shall be covered by the

relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall

be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as

amended, and special laws, as the case may be. This is seen as a violation of

principles within the E-Commerce Law, R.A. No. 8792, where both offline and

online evidence is given equal weight. In its implementing rules and regulations,

it also indicated not to give special benefit or penalty to electronic transactions

just because it is committed online.


5/5

CONCLUSION

I am well aware of the need on such law in order to give the government a

tooth on the abuses that are flagrant in the internet. I, however, also believe that

the government, especially our legislators, can do better in crafting a law that

will not jeopardize our freedom of speech and it should be prioritized on the

onset. The problems of the law already pointed out should be addressed prior to

the formulation of its Implementing Rules and Regulations because if we started

wrong, it will most likely to end up wrong as well.

The last time I checked, we were still a democracy-we want empowered

citizens, not scared and passive ones.-Sen. Teofisto TG Guingona III

Submitted by:

JAMAICA A. MAGLINTE DACUTANANJURISPRUDENTIAL WRITING 2J.D. III

Submitted to:ATTY. IRWIN MIEL

legal commentary on cybercrime law

Documents