Do you agree that Republic Act 10175, otherwise known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is needed to fight child pornography and protect children?
Tell us what you think… Join #HumanRightsPolls.
Cyber Martial Law Year One: Full Stop, No Mere Pause
September 12, 2013
Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance Statement
One Year After the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175) Was Signed Into Law
September 12, 2013 – One year ago today, Congress and the President would have imposed Cyber Martial Law – ignoring citizens’ outrage online – had not the Supreme Court ordered the Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 0175) restrained indefinitely albeit temporarily.
Recent events show just how valuable Internet Freedom is in “speaking truth to power,” in particular, in reminding government that it exists to serve the people and not the other way around.
It was only through free and open social media that a multitude of Filipinos from all walks of life got to march to Luneta, calling for an end of the corrupt “pork barrel” system of political patronage.
Just days before the “Million People March,” many Filipinos had been discussing online how the nation’s coffers got plundered. Taxpayers’ money supposedly funded fake non-governmental organizations, only to end up lining the pockets of “well-connected” private individuals to feed their lavish lifestyles.
Internet freedom has allowed Filipino scientists, using open source software, to create “visualizations” demonstrating just how deep the rot goes across party lines. Laid bare on multiple electronic media platforms is a crime committed with the complicit (or else unwitting and inept) help of government officials. Can it be mere coincidence that those “Honorable” senators and congressmen who had pushed the hardest to get this law passed now find themselves in the vortex of corruption?
It is this very freedom that the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 was designed to restrain. This law expands the government’s powers without affirming the state’s primary responsibility to protect and to recognize the democratic rights of its citizens on the Internet.
Internet freedom flows fundamentally from the human right to freedom of opinion and expression, which includes “the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.” Last year, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly has endorsed the UN Human Rights Council’s affirmation “that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online,” and that States have the obligation to protect and promote the same.
Although the implementation of the Cybercrime Prevention Act remains restrained, let us not forget that the Supreme Court’s order is only temporary. Pending the Court’s final decision, we must remain vigilant and urge the court and our lawmakers to esure nothing less than a COMPLETE REPEAL of this draconian law.
All submissions are republished and redistributed in the same way that it was originally published online and sent to us. We may edit submission in a way that does not alter or change the original material.
Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.
A criminal love.
By Naomi Fontanos
Philippine Daily Inquirer
September 1, 2013
In Europe, adultery is no longer a crime. In the United States, around 30 states have abolished their adultery laws. In October 2012, the United Nations Working Group on discrimination against women in law and in practice issued a joint statement calling on governments of the world to repeal their adultery laws because they led to discrimination and violence against women. In spite of these, in August 2013, first-time lawmaker Edcel “Grex” Lagman filed House Bill No. 2352 to amend the provision on adultery under the Revised Penal Code. HB 2352 seeks to penalize married spouses who have sexual intercourse with same-sex partners.
My Husband’s Lover bill. HB 2352 is more popularly called My Husband’s Lover bill after the title of a primetime TV show that depicts what the proposed legislation wants to address. “My Husband’s Lover” is about the life of a woman, Lally, who is married to a man, Vincent, with whom she has children. Later, the show reveals that Vincent is still emotionally and physically attracted to an old lover, another man named Eric. The show has become hugely popular, prompting the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines to call for a morality check on the show. In defense, the show’s creators issued a statement saying that their program depicts “real-life situations.”
To be clear, marriage in the Philippines remains exclusively heterosexual. That is why HB 2352 surprised many in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. In media interviews, Lagman asks LGBT Filipinos to support HB 2352. After all, he said, the measure pushes for equal rights of LGBT people and is a step toward gender equality. In the bill’s explanatory note, he qualifies this support by saying: “Although I am open and supportive of gender equality, we must not limit its concept [to] the positive side of things. Just like in a marriage, equality should be present ‘for better or for worse.’ Meaning, equality must be upheld both in the rewards and as well as in the sanctions given by the society. If the LGBT group insists on equal rights, they must also be prepared to accept and carry the burden of equal liability and responsibility. That is the essence of democracy.”
In actuality, no national law has ever been enacted to specifically protect or promote the rights of LGBT Filipinos. In fact, since 1999, attempts to pass into law an Anti-Discrimination bill that would penalize discriminatory practices toward members of the LGBT community have been repeatedly thwarted in Congress. Through the years, documented cases have accumulated showing LGBT Filipinos at the receiving end of abusive and discriminatory treatment based on their sexual orientation and gender identity in their own homes and communities, workplaces, schools and in public and private institutions and establishments. Even in places where there are local ordinances meant to protect them, LGBT Filipinos continue to experience discrimination. Not surprisingly, many LGBT rights advocates have rejected HB 2352.
Legal stigmatization of gender and sexuality. HB 2352 comes on the heels of recently passed laws that rights advocates have opposed. To the dismay of many, the Philippine government under President Aquino has enacted several laws that stigmatize gender and sexuality.
In March 2012, Republic Act No. 10158, which seeks to decriminalize vagrancy, was signed into law. Many women’s rights organizations opposed RA 10158 because of its problematic definition of vagrancy. Under RA 10158, vagrants are only prostitutes and prostitutes are only women. In August 2012, the President approved RA 10172 which allows a change in the date of birth and gender in the birth certificate in case of clerical errors. The law explicitly states, however, that change in gender will not cover those who have undergone a “sex change or sex transplant.” Transgender rights advocates protested the inclusion of the phrase sex transplant in the wording of the law because it is a nonexistent medical procedure. Its inclusion violates rules of clarity and nonambiguity, to which legislation is expected to adhere, but to no avail. In September 2012, RA 10175, also known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, was signed into law. It has become one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation under the Aquino administration. RA 10175 criminalizes cybersex along with other online activities. The law has been assailed for its intent to curtail Internet freedom and its violation of people’s freedom of speech and expression. At least 15 petitions were filed at the Supreme Court, which has since issued a Temporary Restraining Order against RA 10175, suspending its implementation.
Lagman’s My Husband’s Lover bill, no doubt, has the potential to follow in the footsteps of these laws. It would be grossly ironic, given that the show after which it was named was presumably created to enlighten people about the real-life complexities of gender and sexuality. If passed into law, HB 2352 would be the first law in the Philippines to criminalize same-sex behavior. This would be unfortunate since the winds of change to abolish adultery in law books have already reached nearby countries. In Taiwan, women’s groups in March 2013 asked the government to abolish adultery from the Criminal Code because it is unfavorable to women. According to women’s rights advocates, Taiwan’s adultery law promotes legal discrimination and maintains pervasive gender inequality. HB 2352 would undoubtedly do the same.
This is a wake-up call then for advocates to bolster the fight for greater equality and genuine sexual and gender freedom in the Philippines.
Naomi Fontanos is a Filipino transgender rights advocate and cofounder of Gender and Development Advocates (Ganda) Filipinas, a Manila-based nonprofit committed to promote human rights in the context of development.
Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/60139/a-criminal-love#ixzz2dtdrtWpX
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
Naomi Fontanos
Co-founder
GANDA Filipinas
WEBSITE:www.facebook.com/gandafilipinas
Gender and Development Advocates (GANDA) Filipinas* is a non-profit, non-partisan, and non-government organization advocating gender equality for all Filipinos. It is led by transgender women in the Philippines. GANDA Filipinas believes that gender is at the heart and center of issues of development including access to education, economic justice, environmental justice, and sexuality and reproductive health rights—areas where transgender voices are usually left out and neglected. GANDA Filipinas upholds the view that transgender rights are human rights.
*Ganda is the Filipino word for “beauty” or “beautiful.” It is a generic term of endearment Filipinos use to warmly call transgender women. Filipinas is the Hispanicized name of the Philippines used by the organization to call attention to the historical fact that people who could be interpreted as transgender in the modern sense already existed even during pre-colonial times.
Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.
120 Days of Temporary Victory as Supreme Court Issues TRO on Cyber Crime Law
With a unanimous verdict, the Supreme Court has issued a temporary restraining order on the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 on Tuesday, October 9, amidst protests by different organizations, including the Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance.
A total of 15 petitions were filed at the Supreme Court. Some grounds of the petitions include: the law as a violation of the right to privacy, to equal protection, and to free speech.
“Dakila lauds the Supreme Court for their decision. However, the TRO is only one step to the long road that lies ahead towards Internet Freedom. While freedom is not absolute, Dakila believes that the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 in its current form does not answer the needs of netizens and cyberspace. And as a country that takes pride in democracy, we cannot allow to have a law that sends a chilling effect on Filipinos and which may be used as an avenue for misuse and abuse,” Ayeen Karunungan, Dakila council member and PIFA spokesperson, said.
The TRO will last for 120 days and the oral arguments on the case will be held next year, January 15.
“We call for every citizen to remain vigilant and continue the fight for the law to be repealed. We call for our lawmakers to craft a law, together with the citizens, that will truly answer the needs and address the problems encountered in cyberspace. The Internet has helped transform the face of activism, how we protect it is now up to us,” Karunungan added.
Meanwhile, Dakila has been working with other groups including Access, an international group instrumental in the successful campaign against SOPA and PIPA, to research legislations in other countries that worked to prevent cybercrimes but also protects digital freedom.
Dakila is an organization of artists that teaches Digital Activism, a program that empowers advocates to strengthen their work through digital media and is a member of the Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance.
For more info, contact Ayeen at 09175057055.
All submissions are republished and redistributed in the same way that it was originally published online and sent to us. We may edit submission in a way that does not alter or change the original material.
Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.
An Unconstitutional Law: A Discourse on the Cybercrime Law
I refer to the burning issue of the day that concerns our society as a whole. This pertains to the new measure enacted by the Legislative and signed into law by the Chief Executive. I am specifically referring to RA 10175 or Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
I overwhelmingly concur with the contention advanced by the Human Rights Online Philippines in condemning the said law. As they directly expressed it in an official statement wherein they stated that they:
“…stands against the present state of the Anti-Cyber Crime Law and we demand that such law must be consistent with human rights standards and perpetrators behind this spiteful law be held accountable.”
Further, they added that:
“RA 10175 or Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is a State crime and an assault against the human rights of the people. HRonlinePH.com is one with the Filipino netizens in condemning its intention to deliberately go against our right to defend human rights online.
“Under the law, activists and human rights defenders will be the obvious and primary target of attacks by guilty politicians and government officials. The intentional inclusion/insertion of treacherous provisions poses great danger to defenders utilizing the internet in its work to promote, defend and assert human rights against violators from the government.
“The law is an obvious assault to many of the peoples’ rights both activists and ordinary citizens like free speech, freedom of expression, due process and among others. It is inconsistent with government’s obligation to respect, protect and fulfill human rights as provided in the Bill of Rights under the Philippine constitution and international Bill of Rights.”
There is no shadow of doubt that this law is sinister and nefarious by virtue of that irrefutable fact that it attacks the fundamental basic rights of the citizens with regard to their right to free speech, freedom of expression, political rights and the right to believe.
Hence, the citizens and various cause-oriented groups joined forces and troops to Padre Faura to ask the Supreme Court to questioned before the Highest Court of the law its legality and constitutionality.
In the words of attorney JJ Disini:
“Indeed, various petitions have been lodged in the Supreme Court to question the constitutionality of the Act’s provisions relating to libel, increased penalties, real-time collection of traffic data and the so-called takedown provision.”
Undeniably, “the law is also a blatant breach of the Government’s obligation and commitment to the United Nation International Covenant on Civil Political Rights.”
Article 19 of the (ICCPR) clearly states that:
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
I echo once again the Human Rights Online Philippines on their statement that:
“Certainly we need a law that would protect the people from cyber criminals and it’s our elected officials’ obligation to provide us one. But we cannot allow a law that would be used to suppress any of our democratic rights and freedom may it be on the internet or on the grounds. We must not allow any law that violates standards and protection of our rights.
“We challenge and demand that PNoy government fulfill its duty and obligation to protect us. Protect the people from cyber criminals and from any form of attacks of human rights violators from the government.
“We reiterate and assert that it is our right to defend human rights offline and online and any law that would violate these rights must be junked and perpetrator must be held accountable!”
It is my firm conviction that this law is constitutionally infirm on the following constitutional aberrations:
1. The provision on libel is unconscionable, oppressive and arrogant. Further, the trending in almost all civilized judicial world today is tilting to the decriminalization of this flimsy and stupid law; yet in this country this law is still being used and utilized to the maximum by the powers that be in attacking political activists, journalists, bloggers, etc. this is utterly ironic, “instead of bringing its libel legislation in line with its UN treaty obligations, the Philippines has set the stage for further human rights violations by embedding criminal libel in the “cybercrime” law.” What a shame! The whole world knows that: “It is obviously the intention of the malicious provisions of the law for guilty politicians to protect themselves by depriving the people of venues for airing demands and remedy for their issues.”
2. This preposterous law violates the rule against double jeopardy “since the acts and the crime of online libel are the same as that defined in the Revised Penal Code” hence there is a dangerous tendency for an offender to be penalized twice for the same offense. Consider the following: a person could be sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for posting online comments judged to be libelous. This is indeed, grossly unjust and oppressive, to say the least!
3. This law violated the Protection Clause
In the words of counsel Disini, “”since the online libel law targets the fundamental right to free speech, the onus is upon the government to demonstrate a compelling state interest in penalizing online libel in this manner, and show that there was no less restrictive alternative available to promote that interest.
4. This law violates the constitutional provision against unreasonable searches and seizure. Further, by empowering various state agencies to launch surveillance against suspects and suspicious netizens, this law clearly violates the right of the citizens to their privacy, so as their communication.
5. The so-called takedown provision. Indeed, this is the most sinister and utterly odious provision of this dangerous law. Said provision “authorizes the DOJ to block access to any content upon a prima facie (or first glance) finding of a violation of the provisions of the Act.” Hence, it logically follows that under this scenario, “the DOJ has effectively become the judge, jury and executioner without the benefit of a trial or a conviction established beyond reasonable doubt.”
6. The Question of the Public Interest
Public Interest is defined as “the welfare of the general public (in contrast to the selfish interest of a person, group, or firm) in which the whole society has a stake and which warrants recognition, promotion, and protection by the government and its agencies.”
While Wikipedia defined the term thus:
“The public interest refers to the “common well-being” or “general welfare”. The public interest is central to policy debates, politics, democracy and the nature of government itself.”
From the two definitions given, one can deduced incontestably that public interest means the interest of the whole public and the protection of the general welfare.
I am wondering aloud, where the hell is the advancement or the protection of the public interest in this law?
There is no iota of doubt that this Cybercrime law undeniably threatens free speech and the right thing to do is for the Congress to either review it or repeal its unconstitutional provisions.
In the case of Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S.46 (1988), the United States Supreme Court speaking through Chief Justice Rehnquist stated that:
“At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern.
“The freedom to speak one’s mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole.
“We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions.”
On this juncture, may I highlight that I also agree with the position taken by the Amnesty International in their stand with regard to this issue:
“The ‘cybercrime’ law rolls back protections for free speech in the Philippines. Under this law, a peaceful posting on the Internet could result in a prison sentence.”
Further, Isabelle Arradon, the deputy Asia director at Amnesty International added that:
“The law, which came into effect on Wednesday, broadly extends criminal libel (defined in the Philippines as the public and malicious imputation of a discreditable act that tends to discredit or dishonour another person and which currently exists under the Revised Penal Code) to apply to acts “committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future”.
“It also increases the criminal penalties for libel in computer-related cases.
“In January 2011, the UN Human Rights Committee found the Philippines’s criminalization of libel to be “incompatible” with the freedom of expression clause in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
“The Philippine constitution establishes that ‘no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech’”.
In the stirring words of Dr. Zosimo Lee, former Dean of College of Social Science and Philosophy at the University of the Philippines:
“The Cybercrime Law is inviting non-compliance because it is perceived to be unfair and undemocratic. Non-compliance from citizens, if it reaches critical levels, should be worrisome to any legitimate government because it can weaken the whole force of the law and hobbles effective administration. And when the force of the law is weakened, the legitimacy of any government becomes suspect on the whole.”
On this note, I would like to commend the Supreme Court in issuing a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) days ago which effectively suspend the execution and implementation of the said law pending the examination and determination of the said Court of its legality and constitutionality.
It is my hope and a great number of our people that eventually the Honorable Court as the last bastion of Freedom, Justice and Fairness will rule that the said law is unconstitutional!
Until then, until that judgment and judicial pronouncement of the Court, it is our passionate and firm will to continue to fight this unjust, unfair and illegal law in whatever means we means necessary.
Hence, it is our collective shouts and screams that:
It is not a crime to criticize government inaction and irresponsibility, it is our right!
It is not a crime to expose government violations, it is our right!
It is not a crime to assert and defend our rights, it is our right!
But it is a CRIME by the Government to violate our internet freedom because it is our human rights!
Jose Mario Dolor De Vega
October 11, 2012
The writer has a Master’s degree in Philosophy, a law degree and a degree in AB Political Science. He was previously teaching Philosophy, Ethics and Anthropology at an institution of higher education in the Nilai University College at Nilai, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia.
Iboto ang iyong #HRPinduterosChoice para sa HR BLOGGERS POST.
Ang botohan ay magsisimula ngayon hanggang sa 11:59 ng Nov 15, 2013.
Ikaw para kanino ka pipindot? Simple lang bumoto:
• i-LIKE ang thumbnail/s ng iyong mga ibinoboto sa HRonlinePH facebook, i-share at ikampanya.
• Bisitahin ang post sa HRonlinePH.com (links sa bawat thumbnail) at pindutin ang button sa
poll sa ilalim ng bawat nominadong post.
• Most number of the combined likes sa FB at sa poll buttons ang magiging 3rd HR Pinduteros
Choice na kikilalanin sa 2013 HR week celebration.Makiisa sa pagpapalaganap ng impormasyon hinggil sa karapatang pantao. Pindot na!
WHAT IS 3RD HR PINDUTEROS CHOICE AWARDS? https://hronlineph.com/2013/10/01/3rd-human-rights-
pinduteros-choice-awards/All submissions are republished and redistributed in the same way that it was originally published online and sent to us. We may edit submission in a way that does not alter or change the original material.
Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.
SC stops cybercrime law, issues TRO.
BY PURPLE ROMERO
October 9, 2012
MANILA, Philippines (2nd UPDATE) – The Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 9, stopped the implementation of the controversial cybercrime law, insiders said.
In a unanimous verdict, the High Tribunal issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, the same insiders added.
The Court also asked the respondent government officials as well as the Solicitor General to respond in 10 days. The respondents include Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, Interior and Local Government Secretary Mar Roxas, among others.
The TRO will last 120 days. Thus the oral arguments on the case will be held on Jan 15, 2013.
Read full article @ www.rappler.com
Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.
Unity Statement of the Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance (PIFA) & List of members #PIFAph
We are a broad alliance of organizations and individuals who stand together to protect our basic rights to liberty and dignity – including the right to privacy, and freedom of expression, speech, sexuality, and mobility – on the Internet. These rights are currently being threatened by the implementation of Republic Act 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. As a neutral, non-partisan movement, PIFA stands at the forefront of the struggle for internet freedom of the Filipino people.
We oppose RA 10175 as it contains provisions that are oppressive, susceptible to abuse, and against the fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. We also find it unacceptable that there was insufficient public consultation while the bill was being discussed, subjecting stakeholders to a law that does not reflect their best interests.
We see the Internet as a venue for education, expression, and empowerment, but RA 10175 focuses on the Internet as a platform for criminal activities. We reject this law that threatens the legitimate online activities and interactions of the Filipino people.
We will take the battle online, to the streets, and before the courts of law – to all possible venues for engagement . We will defend Internet Freedom, a right recently enshrined in the UN International Bill of Human Rights, which the Philippines has an international obligation to uphold. We call on those who passed this law to take responsibility for their actions. We urge the High Court to declare RA 10175 unconstitutional. And we strongly urge President Aquino to heed the call of the people and withdraw his support for this unjust law. We encourage all stakeholders to oppose this measure and continue defending their rights, online and offline.
The government’s primary obligation to its people is to protect our fundamental rights and liberties. Failure of the government to fulfill its obligation does violence to the democracy upon which it is founded. This era would be no different from the dark ages of Martial Law. And never again shall we let that happen.
See List of Signatories: ( to be updated daily )
Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.
Malacañang on cybercrime and FOI: An ideological connection?
By Walden Bello
Inquirer.net
October 7, 2012
It could have remained Sotto’s Folly, the cybercrime law with the controversial libel provision that Senator Vicente Sotto III inserted during the Senate deliberations on the bill.
But with the president strongly standing by his signing it into law, the bill has now become P-noy’s Cyberfolly. He could have said, I made a mistake, and I’m open to amending it, like Senators Edgardo Angara and Francis Escudero did. But he chose to draw a line in the sand and say here I stand.
A flawed law
I belong to the same coalition led by the president, but I have to differ with him on this issue. Let me state very simply the reasons why.
First of all, instead of decriminalizing libel, as so many legal and constitutional experts have strongly suggested, the law extends it to the cyberspace, thanks to the sly maneuver of that plagiarist Tito Sotto and the somnambulistic behavior of most senators and the members of the Senate-House bicameral committee.
Second, the libel law is invoked for a totally inappropriate context. There are editorial controls that operate when it comes to the established media. These professional restraints are not available on the Internet and social media, which promote and facilitate the expression of individual opinion in its most spontaneous forms. The Internet is the premium arena for free speech, where people should be able to express themselves without fear. This does not mean that there are no checks on information and opinion, as Senator Angara claimed when he said without the cybercrime law, the Internet would be the “Wild West.” Opinions expressed on the Internet are taken provisionally by most users, who only get convinced of the truth of an allegation after the flurry of exchanges on the net. The allegation that Senator Sotto is vehemently against the RH Bill because he wants to be the ambassador to the Vatican can be easily proven to be false via the Internet’s self-policing via research-based exchange, just as the allegation that he is a shameless plagiarist can be easily proven true by the same process.
Third, there is absolutely no basis for the provision that makes the penalty for cybercrime, including libel, one degree higher than is provided for in the Revised Penal Code.
There are other disturbing provisions, such as Section 19, which would authorize the Department of Justice to issue an order to take down a website simply on assessment that it is engaged in prima facie violations of the provisions of the cybercrime law.
This power is too broad and can easily be abused.
Why the President’s solution is no solution
Amending the law is obviously the way to go, one that would be strengthened should the Supreme Court find the law unconstitutional. But the President has refused to entertain this route, offering instead to reduce penalties for internet libel.
President Aquino’s offer, however, is no solution at all since the problem is the insertion of the libel provision itself. This is not only against free speech and thus unconstitutional, but it will have a chilling effect on Internet traffic. To reiterate, people should have be able to call Sotto a plagiarist, Vice President Binay a power-hungry politician, Erap a clown, the President a paternalistic elitist, Senator Enrile an unprincipled power broker, and Senator Trillanes an agent of China without fear of being slapped with a libel suit the next day. Let the Internet process of reply and counter-reply based on the use of evidence and counterevidence resolve the issue. This process, after all, has been found effective in producing the best and most balanced encyclopedia around, Wikipedia. And believe me, most Internet users are hardened skeptics: they won’t fall for claims that have the slightest whiff of falsehood about them, though there are, of course, always a few exceptions.
My main concern here, however, is to raise the possible connection between the President’s standing firm on cyberlibel and Malacanang’s lack of enthusiasm for the Freedom of Information Bill (FOI), which incidentally P-noy promised to prioritize during his campaign for the presidency. The cybercrime law effectively restricts freedom of expression. FOI is an enabling law that would facilitate freedom of expression by institutionalizing access to government information that would otherwise remain under wraps.
Bad advice or ideological stance?
Some say that Malacanang’s attitude to both bills reflects a wariness of both established and social media. When I asked him why Malacanang did not make FOI a priority, one Palace official, without invoking confidentiality, told me flat out that the Palace had problems with the bill because “the press already has too much power.” This person might have merited an A+ for frankness but an F on free speech and freedom of information, which are among the pillars of a democracy.
How much of Malacanang’s lack of support for FOI stems from the President himself? And was it the President himself who insisted on standing firm on the libel provision? Or did his stand on both issues come mainly from bad advice?
I certainly hope it is the latter, for that would mean there is a greater possibility of a retreat on the Cybercrime Prevention Act and regaining momentum on FOI. But if it is a case of an ideological position—that is a conservative, elitist stance on free speech and transparency issues—then this is truly disturbing. For the success of the governance reforms, like the anti-corruption campaign, that the President is now promoting, cannot ultimately be separated from the expansion of free speech and deepening of transparency.
Walden Bello represents the party-list Akbayan in the House of Representatives.
Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.
PIFA Files 15th Petition vs. Cyber Martial Law
The Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance (PIFA) – a broad alliance of organizations and netizens – has filed before the Supreme Court on Monday (October 8, 2012), just a few minutes before the end of office hours, the fifteenth petition against the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, Republic Act 10175.
Petitioners asked the high court to issue a “Status Quo Ante Order and/or writ of preliminary injunction” to make government “observe the status quo prevailing before the enactment and effectivity of the Cybercrime Prevention Act.”
PIFA claims that its members have “legal standing to sue” because of the “chilling effect” that impacted on their online activities beginning October 3 – when RA 10175 took effect – subjecting netizens to “unwarranted electronic surveillance” by the Philippine government 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Section 12 of RA 10175 provides for “real-time collection of traffic data” which, the petition explains, “refers to [the collection of] ‘any computer data other than the content of the communication, including, but not limited to, the communication’s origin, destination, route, time, date, size, duration, or type of underlying service.’ …[which] includes information on the identity of the person sending or receiving computer data.”
“Petitioners have legal standing to file this petition as individual and juridical persons who are lawyers, Internet users, taxpayers, subscribers of Philippine telecommunications companies, bloggers, writers, artists, citizen journalists, traditional media persons with an online (Internet) presence, and concerned citizens,” the 61-page petition reads.
PIFA scores the Cybercrime Prevention Act as “an undue abridgment of the freedom of speech, expression, and of the press” which “authorizes government to conduct an unreasonable search and seizure,” and decries that it “violates the right to privacy of communication and correspondence.”
PIFA warns that “the implementation of the Cybercrime Prevention Act will clog the dockets of our courts arising from a deluge of frivolous lawsuits,” zeroing on Section 6 which raises the penalty for “all crimes” in other penal statutes as long as committed with the use of information and communication technologies.
PIFA said RA 10175 is “contrary to the guarantees of equal protection under the law” and “acts an ex post facto law” while also violating public international law. The petition also pointed out that the United Nations Human Rights Council has recently recognized just last July that the “freedom of expression on the Internet” is a “basic human right.”
The petition explains that even if Congress does amend the law, such corrective legislation would still “not render the issues moot, because [the violations] are capable of repetition, yet evading review.”
The petition also points out that the Cybercrime Prevention Act contradicts the Constitutional mandate for a “balanced flow of information under a policy respecting freedom of speech and of the press.”
The petitioners are personalities known offline as well as online, such as Bayan Muna party-list Representative Teddy Casiño.
Blogger-petitioner Noemi Lardizabal-Dado delivered this statement for her group, Blog Watch Citizen Media: “We believe RA 10175 only increases the lavish power of Philippine libel laws, and that the United Nations Human Rights Council is correct in calling Philippine libel law ‘excessive.’ We join with groups opposed to the Cybercrime Law to amend or repeal the law. We welcome engagement with government so that we can craft a better law which protects women and children and which strives for equal protection for everyone.”
Freelance Writers’ Guild of the Philippines (FWGP) founder Ime Morales said, “As an organization, FWGP believes that RA 10175 is unconstitutional and was pushed to serve certain business interests; and we will continue to fight for our rights as writers and netizens of this country.”
Contact
Ayeen Karunungan
renee.karunungan@gmail.com
0917 505 70 55
Read petition @ pifa.ph
Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.
Statement on the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
The Philippines is again faced with another hasty legislation, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (R.A. 10175), passed with the speed of light, should be given not just a closer look but a downreaching scrutiny. A perusal of the law would warrant a declaration of unconstitutionality for the fact that it curtails basic constitutional rights not only of children but of everyone else who utilizes the cyberspace to connect with the world. The said law also runs against the principle of separation of powers.
For Children’s Legal Rights and Development Center (CLRDC) Inc., the law in question obviously infringes on many constitutionally guaranteed rights and principles specifically on the following:
1. It curbs not only one’s right to freedom of expression, speech and press, let alone one’s right to privacy. This pertains to Section 12 of the said law, which actually allows authorities to “collect or record by technical or electronic means” communications transmitted through a computer system”. Authorities can now have access to personal data, listen or record private conversations and correspondences even without a warrant.
Section 12 contravenes the very essence of Art. III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution, particularly Sections 3 (1) on inviolability of privacy of communication, and 4 on freedom of speech, of expression, of the press, and peaceful assembly.
2. This law also criminalizes cyber libel which can be prosecuted apart from that of the traditional libel punishable under the Revised Penal Code, therefore violating the ne bis in idem principle under the general principle of international law or the rule on double jeopardy.
3. A violation of the separation of powers can also be gleaned from the law which gives the Department of Justice much jurisdiction on restricting or blocking access to computer without prior judicial determination for as long as there is prima facie evidence that said computer was used in the commission of any of the prohibited acts under it. This clearly is a function, a power exclusive to the courts and not to the executive. To encroach upon a co-equal branch’s power is not only a violation of the separation of powers but a violation of one’s right to due process.
4. The said law also exhibits vagueness particularly when it comes to the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) jurisdiction over the acts committed in violation of the former. How can jurisdiction be determined considering that the World Wide Web or internet is so far reaching that it can even be used outside the Philippine jurisdiction. More so, how are we to determine an act that is in violation of the law from that of a casual or ordinary conversation not to mention that a mere posting of libelous comments on social media appears also to be punishable.
No right is absolute indeed but it is also guaranteed by our very Constitution that no person shall be deprived of his or her right to life, liberty and property with out due process of law and under this instance, under this law, due process is not complied with, thus it should be declared unconstitutional.
In the Philippines, there are still many crimes that needs more attention like enforced disappearance, torture, extra-legal killings, human trafficking – – these are non-derogable rights that should not be relegated to the sidelines and must be looked into. The enactment of RA 101275 reflects the government’s alleged inattention and apathy to the reigning culture of impunity, the reason why disappearance, torture, trafficking, extra-legal killings remain unbridled and no perpetrators are brought to justice, so to speak.
We call on our fellow rights defenders to remain vigilant as we call on our government to respect constitutionally guaranteed rights and repeal RA 10175.
All submissions are republished and redistributed in the same way that it was originally published online and sent to us. We may edit submission in a way that does not alter or change the original material.
Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.
Widespread social media blackout vs Cybercrime Law
A.M. MARZOÑA, GMA NEWS
October 2, 2012
In support of the movement to repeal the recently passed Anti-Cybercrime Act, Filipino netizens on Tuesday turned their Facebook and Twitter profile pictures to black. The movement started at daybreak and quickly gained momentum over the day until social media were awash with blacked-out status updates and profile pics.
Engaged social media users dubbed the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 or Republic Act 10175 a veritable “Cyber Martial Law” that threatened Internet users‘ freedom of expression by way of a provision on online libel, inserted into the bill only during the bicameral conference.
In addition to using images of protest, netizens also posted comments with black blocks to simulate the possible censorship the Anti-Cybercrime Act might soon impose among bloggers and even the most casual users of social media.
On Twitter, words were blacked out to render incomplete phrases and sentences, eventually turning everything into a fill-in-the-blank meme:
Read full article @ www.gmanetwork.com
Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.
An appeal to the SC to stop Cybercrime law
by Ellen Tordesillas
October 1, 2012
Last Friday, I joined five other persons in asking the Supreme Court to issue a temporary restraining order against the implementation of Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
We asked the High Court to declare Sections 4 (c) [4], 5, 6, 7 and 19 of the Act unconstitutional.
My fellow petitioners are Davao-based radio broadcaster radio broadcaster Alexander Adonis, my VERA Files colleague Ma. Gisela Ordenes-Cascolan, lawyers/bloggers Harry Roque, Romel Bagares, and Gilbert Andres, legal officer of Media Defense Southeast Asia.
Named respondents because they are the ones who will be implementing the law which President Aquino signed last Sept. 12 and took effect Sept. 27 are: Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr., Budget Secretary Florencio Abad, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, Interior Secretary Manuel Roxas III, National Bureau of Investigation director Nonnatus Caesar Rojas, Philippine National Police chief Nicanor Bartolome, and acting Director-General Denis Villorente of the Information and Communications Technology Office-Department of Science and Technology.
Our primary argument against the law is that it is in violation of the Constitution which states 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.”
Read full article @ www.ellentordesillas.com
Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.
Call for Petitioners
Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance (PIFA) is for the eventual repealing of the CyberCrime Law (RA 10175). One of the strategies we are going to embark on is to file a TRO this coming October 4, 2012. We need to know who (as individual) and what groups want to support the petition given the outline of the petition below:
I. The Law is an unreasonable search and seizure
a. The Law violates the right to privacy.
b. The Law violates the right to privacy of communications.
c. The Law does not meet narrowing tailoring standard for legislation that infringes fundamental rights.
d. The Law creates data harvesting/data mining. Surveillance.
II. The Law violates equal protection. No substantial distinction.
a. Does not distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate use. The Law penalizes legitimate use. (The Law is void for vagueness. It fails overbreadth.)
b. The Law operates as an ex post facto law.
c. The Law does not meet narrow tailoring standard for legislation that infringes fundamental rights.
III. The Law violates the right to free speech.
a. The Law is contrary to Public International Law.
b. Balanced flow of information right.
IV. The Law will clog the dockets and jail.
For individual petitioners, we need you to submit your name, age, address, citizenship and TELCOS (subscription to the internet and description of how are you affected by the law (e.g. because you’re a netizen, blogger, freelance writer; how much you will be affected by the law in your usage of the net for your work in narrative form). Draft petition will be available for your reading and review on October 2 evening before midnight.
For organizational petitioners, your group needs to be SEC-registered. Submit to us your name and TELCOS (how much your business/advocacy will be affected by the law in narrative form).
SUBMISSION OF NAMES/ORGS FOR THE PETITION IS ON OCT 1 (MON) UNTIL 7PM. PLEASE EMAIL TO joftivillena@gmail.com or the form below
THE ACTUAL SIGNING PERIOD IS ON OCT 3 (Wed), 5-10 PM at 11 Matimpiin St., bgy. Pinyahan, Q.C. Look for Jofti. YOU MAY ALSO BRING YOUR FUND DONATIONS TOO.
During the actual signing, the individual petitioners need to bring 25 photocopies of your Internet bill and payment receipt most recent (e.g. wi-tribe, DSL, etc.) and 25 photocopies of one government-issued ID (e.g. passport, SSS, etc.).
For organizations, please bring 25 photocopies of your Corporate Secretary’s Certificate which shows the organization’s board resolution authorizing you to sign/file the petition.
Make sure you are physically present on October 3 to sign up.
Sign petition @ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?fromEmail=true&formkey=dE9UbVFHYkVLUGIydXpSZ0lWbXdUUUE6MQ
We are the Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance or PIFA (formerly known as Filipino Internet Freedom Alliance of FIFA — we’re keeping both names), a broad coalition of individuals and organizations seeking to amend / remove the provisions which threaten Internet Freedom in Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. In the long-term, it aims to be the bastion of this freedom.
On October 2, 2012, Tuesday, 10am we will troop to the Supreme Court to let the 3 branches of our government know how we feel about the Cybercrime Prevention Act in its current form. Let’s use the power of social media to spread the word. Long live Internet Freedom!!!
Or connect with PIFA @ https://www.facebook.com/groups/319291631503416/
Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.
Junk the Cybercrime Prevention Law!
by Kabataan PartyList
The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 poses serious threats to Internet freedom, the right to privacy and other essential civil liberties including the freedom of speech, expression, and the press.
We, the youth, journalists, activists, bloggers, and netizens of the Philippines express our outright condemnation to the passage of Republic Act No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which poses serious threats to Internet freedom, the right to privacy and other essential civil liberties including the freedom of speech, expression, and the press.
While the Cybercrime Law was supposedly enacted to ward off hacking, identity theft, data manipulation, cybersex and other nefarious activities in the Internet, the insertion of provisions regarding online libel and vague sections on data collection and sanctions have transformed the legislation into an online censorship law.
We express our highest condemnation to the Bicameral Conference, especially to Sen. Vicente Sotto III, for inserting the online libel provisions, which are not present even in the 2001 Budapest Convention on Cybercrime penned by the Council of Europe, which was the basis for RA 10175.
Read full article and sign petition @ www.change.org
Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.
Human Rights Online Philippines 