October 2012
U.P. Newsletter 5
Experts discuss pros and cons of cybercrime law Andre Encarnacion Photo by Bong Arboleda
or the Data Privacy Act of 2012, a law he said is even more problematic for social media users. The Data Privacy Act, he said, is a combination of two global approaches to control privacy: the EU Data Protection Directive which states that information cannot be sold or disclosed without the unambiguous consent of the individual, and the APEC Privacy Principle which he calls a more marketdriven approach. “We take the elements of the EU Data Protection Directive and took elements from APEC so we have a watered down statute that to me is neither here nor there, but potentially Atty. Disini stresses the general agreement that allowing the secretary of justice to block access to any content dangerous also…Under the upon a prima facie finding of a violation of the law is unconstitutional for violating due process. Data (Privacy) Act, when you violate someone’s data privacy rights, Adonis case in Davao that libel in the said that the Philippines is sure to be it’s a crime. And under the Cybercrime Philippines runs counter to freedom of embarrassed in the review because instead Prevention Act, you’re penalized again, one expression. The country received a copy of decriminalizing libel, Congress widened degree higher, because you’re more likely of the UN’s opinion last January. The its scope. “Instead of decriminalizing, we than not to use ICT to breach somebody reasons given were that the punishment was have expanded the coverage. Not only else’s privacy rights. You do it every day on disproportionate to the means it seeks to that, we have tripled the penalty. The achieve, that there was an alternative in civil penalty now is prison correccional from prison Facebook.” Prof. Harry Roque Jr., also of the College libel, and that criminal libel in the country mayor—from two years to six years and one of Law, talked about the constitutionality of was defective because it does not recognize day, it is now six years and one day to twelve years. Because we have tripled the penalty, the Cybercrime Law. His approach centered truth as a complete defense. “Coincidentally, next month the we have also done away with the possibility on the UN Human Rights Commission’s view that found Philippine libel laws to Philippines is the subject of regular periodic of parole for individuals who are convicted be inconsistent with Article 19 of the review by the ICCPR Committee,” he said. of libel. Why? Because as you know the International Covenant on Civil and “And I’m sure one of the things that can indeterminate sentence law only grants be brought up against the Philippines is the right to parole if the maximum penalty Political Rights (ICCPR). According to Roque, the UN came up what has it done to comply with the view imposed is six years and one day. There with the opinion based on the Alexander that it must decriminalize libel?” Roque is now a sure prison term for individuals convicted by final judgment for libel under the Cybercrime Prevention Act.” Te r r y R i d o n o f t h e K a b a t a a n Partylist cited several political and social developments resulting from the Cybercrime Fred Dabu Prevention Act. He said that several online communities – even those that did not have digital age.” research already being done by many Responding to some 15 petitions, the outright political orientations – were active UPD Assistant Professor of Journalism educational institutions. Supreme Court (SC) issued a 120-day in denouncing RA 10175. Danilo Arao relayed the UP College of The other petitioners who spoke at the temporary restraining order (TRO) around Ridon said that the a declaration of Mass Communication’s (CMC) support press conference were National Union of noontime last October 9 suspending the unconstitutionality from the Supreme for the immediate repeal of RA 10175. He Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) Viceimplementation of Republic Act (RA) Court and a repeal of the law from the said that the law is “potentially damaging to Chairperson Nonoy Espina, Bayan Muna No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of House of Representatives were the two communication and journalism education Party-list Rep. Teddy Casiño, lawyers Romel 2012) signed by President Benigno Aquino legal measures that were being pushed to in the country.” Arao stressed that it would Bagares and Julius Matibag, and Bagong III last September 12. void the Cybercrime Prevention Act. He discourage the conduct and uploading of Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) SecretaryUnited under the hashtag added that there was significant pressure critical commentaries and investigative General Renato Reyes Jr. #NotoCybercrimeLaw, some of the Continued on page 6 petitioners held a press conference at the Continued on page 7 College of Arts and Sciences (CAS) lobby in UP Manila (UPM) earlier that day and picketed in front of the SC along Padre Faura Street to call for the repeal of the cybercrime law. Composed of journalists, lawyers, netizens (bloggers, graphic artists, internet freedom advocates and internet users), legislators, educators, students, and people’s organizations, they described the issuance of a TRO or a Status Quo Ante Order as a “people’s victory” and vowed to remain vigilant until RA 10175 is repealed. During the press conference, the panel of petitioners briefly discussed how RA 10175 violates the Filipino peoples’ constitutional rights, why it is tantamount to “e-martial law” and why it should be junked. Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) Deputy Executive Director Luis Teodoro said, “The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is the worst assault on free expression since Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law 40 years ago.” He said that this “instrument of repression” is not just a form of cyber A lightning protest was mounted by UP Diliman students at the Quezon Hall and Oblation Plaza last October 9 against the Cybercrime Prevention Act. martial law but “martial law reborn in the
“Under Section 6 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act, all existing crimes if committed by through or with the use of ICT [information and communication technology] are now cybercrimes – so all crimes are now potentially cybercrimes.” UP College of Law Prof. JJ Disini stressed this point at “A Forum on the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175),” last October 4 at the Bocobo Lecture Room of the UP Law Center. The implementation of the act was stopped last October 9 for 120 days by the Supreme Court through a temporary restraining order (TRO). Disini also mentioned Section 19 of RA 10175 as another problematic provision because it allows the Secretary of Justice to block access to any content upon a prima facie finding of a violation of the law. “I think among all the provisions that are being challenged, there is universal agreement that this one is unconstitutional for being violative of due process.” For Disini, this section effectively makes the Department of Justice a censor. “On the basis of the claim affidavit, because it says prima facie, not even probable cause, the Secretary of Justice can issue an order directing the service providers to take down that content. The mobile providers... they are forced to take it down – why? Because they are all enfranchised; they hold legislative franchises and licenses from the NTC (National Telecommunications Commission) so they can’t afford to refuse an order from (the DOJ) to block content.” Besides RA 10175, Disini also warned against its companion law, R.A. No. 10173
SC suspends cybercrime law, netizens on “red alert”
Photo by Misael Bacani