Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 | ||
---|---|---|
Congress of the Philippines | ||
Long title
| ||
Citation | Republic Act 10175 | |
Territorial extent | conference committee May 30, 2012 | |
Conference committee bill passed by House of Representatives | June 4, 2012 | |
Conference committee bill passed by Senate | June 26, 2011 | |
Status: In force |
The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, officially recorded as Republic Act No. 10175, is a
While hailed for penalizing illegal acts done via the Internet that were not covered by old laws, the act has been criticized for its provision on criminalizing libel, which is perceived to be a curtailment of the
On October 9, 2012, the Supreme Court of the Philippines issued a temporary restraining order, stopping implementation of the Act for 120 days, and extended it on 5 February 2013 "until further orders from the court."[5][6]
On February 18, 2014, the Supreme Court upheld most of the sections of the law, including the controversial cyberlibel component.[7][note 1]
History
The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is one of the first laws in the Philippines which specifically criminalizes
The first drafts of the Anti-Cybercrime and Data Privacy Acts started in 2001 under the Legal and Regulatory Committee of the former Information Technology and eCommerce Council ([ITECC) which is the forerunner of the Commission on Information and Communication Technology (CICT) and now the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) It was headed by former Secretary Virgilio "Ver" Peña, with the Legal and Regulatory Committee chaired by Atty. Claro Parlade. The creation of the laws was an initiative of the Information Security and Privacy Sub-Committee chaired by Albert P. dela Cruz who was then president of the Philippine Computer Emergency Response Team (PHCERT), together with Anti-Computer Crime and Fraud Division (ACCFD) Chief, Elfren Meneses of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The administrative and operational functions was provided by the Presidential Management Staff (PMS) acting as the CICT secretariat.[10] The initial version] of the law was communicated to various other organizations and special interest groups during that time.
This was superseded by several cybercrime-related bills filed in the 14th and 15th Congress. The Cybercrime Prevention Act ultimately was the product of House Bill No. 5808, authored by Representative Susan Yap-Sulit of the second district of Tarlac and 36 other co-authors, and Senate Bill No. 2796, proposed by Senator Edgardo Angara. Both bills were passed by their respective chambers within one day of each other on June 5 and 4, 2012, respectively, shortly after the impeachment of Renato Corona, and the final version of the Act was signed into law by President Benigno Aquino III on September 12.
Provisions
The Act, divided into 31 sections split across eight chapters, criminalizes several types of offense, including
The Act has universal jurisdiction: its provisions apply to all Filipino nationals regardless of the place of commission. Jurisdiction also lies when a punishable act is either committed within the Philippines, whether the erring device is wholly or partly situated in the Philippines, or whether damage was done to any natural or juridical person who at the time of commission was within the Philippines. Regional Trial Courts shall have jurisdiction over cases involving violations of the Act.
A takedown clause is included in the Act, empowering the Department of Justice to restrict and/or demand the removal of content found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, without the need for a court order. This provision, originally not included in earlier iterations of the Act as it was being deliberated through Congress, was inserted during Senate deliberations on May 31, 2012.[11] Complementary to the takedown clause is a clause mandating the retention of data on computer servers for six months after the date of transaction, which may be extended for another six months should law enforcement authorities request it.
The Act also mandates the National Bureau of Investigation and the Philippine National Police to organize a cybercrime unit staffed by special investigators whose responsibility will be to exclusively handle cases pertaining to violations of the Act, under the supervision of the Department of Justice. The unit is empowered to, among others, collect real-time traffic data from Internet service providers with due cause, require the disclosure of computer data within 72 hours after receipt of a court warrant from a service provider, and conduct searches and seizures of computer data and equipment.
The enactment of Republic Act 10876 (The National Bureau of Investigation Reorganization and Modernization Act) empowers the NBI to have the primary jurisdiction in investigating violations of Republic Act 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act 2012).
Reaction
The new Act received mixed reactions from several sectors upon its enactment, particularly with how its provisions could potentially affect freedom of expression, freedom of speech and data security in the Philippines.
The
Senator Edgardo Angara, the main proponent of the Act, defended the law by saying that it is a legal framework to protect freedoms such as the freedom of expression. He asked the Act's critics to wait for the bill's implementing rules and regulations to see if the issues were addressed.[15] He also added that the new law is unlike the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act.[16] However, Senator TG Guingona criticized the bill, calling it a prior restraint to the freedom of speech and freedom of expression.[17]
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has also expressed concern about the Act,[18] supporting local media and journalist groups which are opposed to it. The Centre for Law and Democracy also published a detailed analysis criticizing the law from a freedom of expression perspective.[19]
Constitutionality
Several petitions were submitted to the
On October 8, 2012, the
Disini v. Secretary of Justice
On February 18, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that most of the law was constitutional, although it struck down other provisions, including the ones that violated
While motions for reconsideration were immediately filed by numerous petitioners, including the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, they were all rejected on April 22, 2014.[32][33] However, justice Arturo Brion, who originally wrote a separate concurring opinion, changed his vote to dissent after reconsidering whether it was just to impose higher penalties for cyberlibel than for regular libel.[34]
Effects
Cyberlibel
On May 24, 2013, the
Duterte's administration has been accused of targeting journalists with the law, in particular
Insults that would be seen in other countries as minor have led to DOJ prosecutors filing cyberlibel charges: such as "crazy"; "asshole";[48] "senile"; and "incompetent".[49]
On March 2, 2020, the first guilty verdict in a cyberlibel case was returned against a local politician, Archie Yongco, of
A
Cyberlibel vs. regular libel
The
People vs. Luisa Pineda
The
See also
- Cyberbullying
- Philippine copyright law
Notes
- ^ libel; but only where it penalizes those who simply receive the post or react to it], 5 [only in relation to sections 4(c)(2), 4(c)(3), and 4(c)(4)], 7 [only in relation to sections 4(c)(2) and 4(c)(4)], 12, and 19 were struck down by the Court for being unconstitutional in Disini v. Secretary of Justice.
- ^ "Legislative History at the House of Representatives". Archived from the original on February 23, 2014. Retrieved February 18, 2014.
References
- ^ a b Republic Act No. 10175
- ^ Gonzales, Iris (November 2, 2012). "Filipino law is 'cyber authoritarianism'". New Internationalist. Retrieved June 5, 2020.
- ^ a b Jennings, Ralph (April 24, 2020). "Rare Cyber Libel Case Tests Fragile Media Freedoms in Philippines". Voice of America. Retrieved June 5, 2020.
- ^ ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved June 5, 2020.
- ^ "SC extends TRO on cybercrime law". GMA News. February 5, 2013. Retrieved February 5, 2013.
- ^ "SC won't lift TRO on cybercrime law". Sunstar. February 5, 2013. Archived from the original on February 12, 2013. Retrieved February 5, 2013.
- ^ a b Merueñas, Mark (February 18, 2014). "Internet libel in cybercrime law constitutional – SC". GMA News. Retrieved May 20, 2016.
- ^ Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 Archived September 30, 2014, at the Wayback Machine (Republic Act No. 8792)
- ^ Arnold, Wayne (August 22, 2000). "Technology; Philippines to Drop Charges on E-Mail Virus". The New York Times. Retrieved October 3, 2012.
- ^ [1] A Short History of the Development of Cybercrime Legislation in the Philippines - Geronimo L. Sy, Assistant Secretary - Manila, Department of Justice
- ^ Reyes, Karl John C. (October 2, 2012). "Senate inserted Section 19: How the 'take-down' clause emerged in Cybercrime Law". TV5 News and Information. Archived from the original on October 4, 2012. Retrieved October 3, 2012.
- ^ Agcaoili, Lawrence (September 20, 2012). "IT-BPO industry welcomes passage of Cybercrime Prevention Act". The Philippine Star. Retrieved September 24, 2012.
- GMA News and Public Affairs. Retrieved September 24, 2012.
- ^ Tiongson, Frank Lloyd (January 30, 2012). "Libel law violates freedom of expression – UN rights panel". The Manila Times. Retrieved September 24, 2012.
- ^ Sy, Marvin (September 23, 2012). "'Give Cybercrime Prevention Act a chance'". The Philippine Star. Retrieved April 5, 2013.
- ^ Angara, Edgardo. "Protecting our Cyberspace - The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012". EdAngara.com. Retrieved September 24, 2012.
- ^ Mendes, Christina (September 22, 2012). "Guingona criticizes Cybercrime Prevention Act". The Philippine Star. Retrieved September 25, 2012.
- ^ "Philippines' New Cybercrime Prevention Act Troubling for Free Expression". Electronic Frontier Foundation. September 18, 2012. Retrieved October 1, 2012.
- ^ "Philippines: Analysis Finds Major Problems in Cybercrime Law". Centre for Law and Democracy. November 22, 2012. Retrieved January 1, 2014.
- ^ "Malacanang reminds critics: Cyberlibel Act passed under Aquino Administration - UNTV News". UNTV News. June 16, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
- ^ Canlas, Jonas (September 27, 2012). "Suits pile up assailing anti-cybercrime law". The Manila Times. Archived from the original on September 30, 2012. Retrieved September 27, 2012 – via PressReader. Alt URL
- ^ Torres, Tetch (October 2, 2012). "SC defers action on petitions vs cybercrime law". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved October 2, 2012.
- ^ "#NoToCybercrimeLaw protest goes viral". Rappler. October 2, 2012. Retrieved June 5, 2020.
- ^ "Websites hacked in protest vs new law". Rappler. September 26, 2012. Retrieved June 5, 2020.
- ^ Torres, Tetch (October 9, 2012). "SC issues TRO vs cyber law". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc. Retrieved October 9, 2012.
- ZDNet. ZDNet. Retrieved December 19, 2012.
- ^ Phneah, Ellyne (February 5, 2013). "Philippines extends suspension of cybercrime law". ZDNet. Retrieved June 5, 2020.
- ^ "Petitions challenging Republic Act No. 10175". Supreme Court of the Philippines. Archived from the original on April 20, 2013.
- ^ 2013 Judiciary Annual Report (PDF). Manila: Supreme Court of the Philippines. 2013. p. 46.
Later on, the Court approved another first -- the uploading of the audio recording of the proceedings of the oral arguments of the cases starting with the cases on Cybercrime Law.
- ^ a b Jose Disini, et al. v. Secretary of Justice, et al., G.R. No. 203335 (Supreme Court of the Philippines 2014-02-11), Text.
- ^ Disini v. Secretary of Justice, Opinion dissenting in part and concurring in part by Leonen, J. Archived June 7, 2021, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Judiciary Annual Report 2014 (PDF). Manila: Supreme Court of the Philippines. 2014. p. 31.
In a later signed resolution, the Court denied all the motions for reconsiderationof its decision dated February 18, 2014. (GR No. 203335, GR No. 203299, GR No.203306, GR No. 203359, GR No. 203378, GR No. 203391, GR No. 203407, GR No.203440, GR No. 203453, GR No. 203454, GR No. 203469, GR No. 203501, GR No.203509, GR No. 203515, and GR No. 203518, April 22, 2014)
- ^ Jose Disini, et al. v. Secretary of Justice, et al. (Ruling on Motion for Reconsideration), G.R. No. 203335 (Supreme Court of the Philippines 2014-04-22), Text.
- ^ Disini v. Secretary of Justice (Ruling on Motion for Reconsideration), Dissent by Brion, J.
- ^ a b Merueñas, Mark (May 23, 2013). "DOJ to drop online libel from revised cybercrime law". GMA News. Retrieved June 5, 2020.
- ^ DOJ deletes libel from new anti-cybercrime bill Archived June 16, 2013, at archive.today by Rene Acosta with InterAksyon.com, businessmirror.com.ph, 23 May 2013
- ^ Tordesillas, Ellen T. (July 2, 2018). "OPINION: Trillanes vs Nieto case underscores need to decriminalize libel". ABS-CBN News. Retrieved June 5, 2020.
- ^ Bordadora, Norman (September 23, 2012). "Sotto: What's wrong with having libel law in cyber space?". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved June 5, 2020.
- ^ La Viña, Tony (March 4, 2014). "Ending criminal libel". Manila Standard. Retrieved June 5, 2020.[permanent dead link]
- Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, Act No. 3815, 8 December 1930, Title 13, Chapter One, Section One, "Crimes Against Honor"
- ^ Gonzales, Cathrine (March 13, 2020). "Ramon Tulfo surrenders to police over cyberlibel cases". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved June 5, 2020.
- ^ Movido, Angel (October 10, 2018). "'Thinking Pinoy' blogger pleads not guilty to libel". ABS-CBN News. Retrieved June 5, 2020.
- ^ Delta Dyrecka Letigio (November 6, 2019). "Two women arrested after classmate files cyber libel charges". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved June 5, 2020.
- ^ Cullen, Shay (September 8, 2019). "Speaking the truth". The Manila Times. Retrieved June 5, 2020.
- ^ Dalipe, Gerome M. (October 25, 2016). "BPO senior manager faces online libel case". Sunstar. Retrieved June 5, 2020.
- ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved June 5, 2020.
- ^ J. C. Gotinga (April 25, 2020). "DOLE asks Taiwan to deport OFW with Facebook posts criticizing Duterte". Rappler. Retrieved June 6, 2020.
- ^ Buan, Lian (May 14, 2020). "Salesman arrested, jailed for calling Duterte 'crazy'". Rappler. Retrieved June 5, 2020.
- ^ Gilbert, David (February 27, 2020). "The Philippines Wants to Arrest 8chan Founder Fredrick Brennan: 'It's Basically a Death Sentence'". Vice. Retrieved June 5, 2020.
- ^ a b Santiago, Salvador (March 2, 2020). "Court finds Zambo Sur town dad guilty of cyber libel". Philippine News Agency. Retrieved June 5, 2020.
- ^ De Santos, Jonathan (January 21, 2013). "The Wisdom of Crowds: Crowdsourcing Net Freedom". Yahoo News Philippines. VERA Files. Retrieved January 25, 2014.
- ^ "Freedom on the Net 2016 - Philippines". Freedom House. November 14, 2016. Retrieved June 5, 2020 – via Refworld, UNHCR.
- ^ Kristine Joy Patag (February 18, 2019). "Journalists reiterate call to decriminalize libel". The Philippine Star. Retrieved June 5, 2020.
- ^ Ellen T. Tordesillas (July 2, 2018). "Trillanes vs Nieto case underscores need to decriminalize libel". Vera Files. Retrieved June 5, 2020.
- ^ Bolledo, Jairo (July 11, 2023). "SC: Libelous Facebook post punishable under cybercrime law only, not libel". Rappler. Retrieved July 13, 2023.
- ^ Laqui, Ian (February 26, 2024). "SC imposes jail term, P2M fine on child 'pornographer'". The Philippine Star. Retrieved February 26, 2024.
- ^ "SC Sentences Child Pornographer to Imprisonment and PHP2 Million Fine". Supreme Court of the Philippines. February 26, 2024. Retrieved February 26, 2024.
External links
- Media related to Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 at Wikimedia Commons
- "Republic Act No. 10175 — An act defining cybercrime, providing for the prevention, investigation, suppression and the imposition of penalties therefor and for other purposes". Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. Office of the President of the Philippines. September 12, 2012. Archived from the original on December 9, 2021. Retrieved May 22, 2020.
- "Disini v. Secretary of Justice, oral arguments by petitioners (January 15, 2013) and the government (January 29, 2013)". Supreme Court of the Philippines. Archived from the original on April 20, 2013. Alt URL