#ra10175

The Supreme Court FINALLY came out with a ruling on the much awaited Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175). It was to take effect on October 2012 after after the passing of congress and signing of the president but its implementation was put to a halt after several petitioners filed a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) with the Supreme Court. A 120-day TRO was initially issued but later on extended indefinitely while the deliberations for the unconstitutionality of some of the provisions were being decided upon.

Click HERE If You wanna download and read the entire Supreme Court Decision.

Internet Libel

While it did 'struck down' some of the contentious provisions (declaring them as 'un-constitutional'), they have on the other hand upheld the highly controversial provision on 'Internet Libel'. Despite the Opinion of the United nations and the  call of many to de-criminalize Libel itself, it seemed that defamation suits will now progress beyond print and broadcast media and into your much wider and far reaching world of the web.

The SC were quick to add though that Internet Libel will only hold the 'Original' source of the material liable and NOT those who merely received and commented on it (read: like). It  is unclear however, if sharing or re-posting constitutes a crime. I guess we will find that out later on.

Although that's commendable, If the perpetrator is smart and technology savvy,  It will be extremely difficult to 'trace' the original source much less 'identify' him, her or It. The Internet is so designed for anonymity that there is a saying in cyberspace that goes like this "In the Internet, No one knows if You're a Dog".

NO-GO

The following are the ones that DID NOT get the nod of the judges (Un-Constitutional):

1. Aiding and Abetting in the commission of Cybercrime as applied to crimes of; Child Pornography, Unsolicited Commercial Communications or SPAM (they have voided the entire provision for SPAM anyways!) and Online Libel. 

To this I ask... "On God's Green Earth.. WHY???????" so anybody who willfully helps the perpetrators to commit those crimes have just earned a lifetime supply of "get-out-of-jail" free cards?

2. Section 7 which allows prosecution of crimes both for the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and the Anti-Cybercrime Law. This eliminates the possibility of being prosecuted for the same crime under two different laws or "Double Jeopardy" in Law-Speak.

3. The "Take Down" power which could have given blanket authority to the Department of Justice (DOJ)  to restrict and block access to suspected computer data.

4.  The Collection and Recording of Traffic data in 'real-time' without a court order (warrant). I'm not sure if this is totally not allowed or it just means that a Search warrant or Court order is a requisite to doing so.

5. Penalizing Unsolicited Commercial Communications (UCC) or SPAM. This one really bothers me. Unless I get a good explanation (as I might be missing something - Help Lawyer Friends!) but this reads to me like the Supreme Court has just made SPAMMING LEGAL.

APPROVED

On the other hand, the following got the green light from the esteemed Magistrates.

1. Internet Libel (as discussed above)

2. The hacking provisions that were present in the Anti-Hacking portions (Section 33) of the eCommerce Act - RA 8792 namely: Illegal Access, Illegal Interception, System Interference and  Data Interference, 

3. Cyber-squatting or the act of obtaining domain names even though it is not related to you (or what you do) with the purpose of gaining profit from the entities that do actually need them for their business and other legal activities.

4. Identity Theft - Thumbs-Up!

5. Child Pornography - Most Definitely.

6. Cybersex - ANY Kind of Porn is illegal in the Philippines! Especially if it is done for 'favor' and 'consideration' as stated in the Law. This provision especially the favor and consideration portion is a potential beerhouse or barbershop discussion topic i.e. "walang katapusan". 

7. Search and Seizure of Computer Data - with the proper Court order of course. Every  investigation needs Evidence but the proper 'handling' part should be carefully addressed by our law enforcement agencies. Digital evidence is much easier to be compromised.

"FUNCTUS OFFICIO"

or "Of No Further Legal Efficacy" the fancy Latin term which  means that The rendering of the decision on February 18, 2014 effectively lifts the suspension/TRO since the case has already been decided upon.

Ladies, Gentlemen .. Netizens of Virtual Pilipinas, RA 10175 is now fully enforceable. BE-AWARE!

Peace!

  Here's our Journalism 121 class magazine on Cybercrimes in the Philippines. Feel free to read and share! :) 

Some of us call it E-Martial Law. They, however, call it Republic Act 10175 “An Act Defining Cybercrime, Providing for the Prevention, Investigation, Suppression and the Imposition of Penalties Therfor and for Other Purposes.” It has ignited the fury of netizens, journalists, and ordinary citizens when it was signed and later put into effect. 

The word "hacktivist" was born, referring to the activists who have hacked their way into websites to protest the Act. The Anonymous rose and implored Filipinos to stand their ground. Images went viral. Among them was a quotation of Article III Section 4 of the Philippine Constitution, underlining the first 16 words “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press. . .” 

On the surface, the RA10175 has noble intentions in addressing pressing issues such as the prevention of the transmission of computer viruses, hacking, computer-related identity theft, computer-related forgery, child pornography, and unsolicited commercial communications (or spam). They’re all found in section four of the said law, but, wait… section 4 has a catch! Cue in creepy music from the film Psycho, please. Section 4 of RA10175 has included libel as a punishable act. (But nothing on online plagiarism? Really?) 

What does this mean, then? If you post a status update, blog entry, comment, tweet or if you ‘like’, retweet, or share a statement that is libelous on the surface—dum, dum, dum!—you could face up to 12 years of imprisonment. Twelve years. Your computer or whatever device you used could be taken away from you. Really? You didn’t deprive someone of their life by murdering or raping them. You didn’t deprive someone of their property by barging into their home and committing robbery.  

Come to think of it, though, if you take away the harsh penalty and broad scope of what is considered libelous, online libel isn’t totally bad. It could even put an end to online bullying—when people who are consumed by hate destroy another person’s dignity by posting cruel statements or creating websites dedicated to insulting and intentionally putting down a person. 

But what is threatened is the freedom of expression of those who really have something to say—those who see the wrongdoings of others and voice their dismay or fury at the erring person. What now, you can’t call out someone’s wrongdoing because the person at the receiving end of your criticisms could easily call your opinion ‘libelous’? Perhaps a way of avoiding accusations of libel is making sure that the criticisms are about the person’s actions, not the person himself. To quote Senator Teofisto “TG” Guingona III: “Let me just point out that we need a Cybercrime Prevention Act. However, the inclusion of these problematic provisions on cyber-libel will just curtail a fundamental principle of good governance: CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. The last time I checked, we were still a democracy—we want empowered citizens, not scared and passive ones.” 

Freedom of expression shouldn’t be the one considered to be a crime here. I can think of a ton of things that should be considered illegal. (Note that the following contain heavy use of irony.) 

First, those self-portraits that girls post and caption with the words “OMG I’m so fat” or “Do you guys think I look ugly in this picture?” Not only have they become victims of the superficial and false concept of beauty, they’ve also developed a sense of insecurity and narcissism because of it. 

Second, those who feel the need to post on Instagram a photo of the over-priced food they’re about to eat while thousands of our fellowmen can’t even eat a decent meal. 

Third, Jejemons should be criminalized for their crimes against proper grammar and spelling. Seriously, something should be done about the insistence of tYp1nG Lyk diZzz. 

Four, those game requests that just won’t go away. (Seriously, why are these apps designed in such a way that in order for you to keep playing/using, you need to send your friends invitations? I think I know the answer to that, but, still…) 

There is even an inclusion of online piracy (under Misuse of Devices). But this I ask: if you ban us from downloading and sharing intellectual property—with no intention of gaining profit whatsoever—why not offer us alternatives like authorized websites, that offer movies, music, TV show episodes, or e-books for reasonable prices? For a moment, take your hungry eye away from the profit and think from the point of view of your consumers.

Sarcasm aside, I wonder why RA10175 was signed swiftly while there are still pending and more important bills in Congress and Senate that need passing. Take the Freedom of Information Bill and Reproductive Health Bill, for instance. And what about laws that address poverty, corruption, or environmental devastation?

Furthermore, I implore this from those in the law enforcement: before you begin hunting down netizens who are only exercising their right to express themselves, why not lock up the criminals with actual heinous crimes like murder, rape, and theft (I’m referring to theft in all its form)?

But fear not, my fellow citizens. Come 2013 we have the power to be anonymous when we cast our votes. The power does not lie on who is voted. The true power lies in us when we make the choice of who we want to govern us. Let us set aside our differences as we exercise our power for the sake of our next generation. We will speak and we shall be heard.