Black Tuesday: Mourning For Freedom of Expression Both Online and Offline
The Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance (PIFA) continues its protest against the Cybercrime Law as the oral arguments resumed at the Supreme Court today after it has suspended its oral arguments last week.
“We hope that the oral arguments will not be postponed today as it was last week. It seems like a delaying tactic until the temporary restraining order is lifted next week, February 6,” Red Tani, PIFA spokesperson said.
The Supreme Court gave a temporary restraining order on the the Cybercrime Prevention Act after 15 petitioners, including PIFA, questioned the constitutionality of the law. The petitioners have cited the libel clause and the takedown clause as two provisions of the bill which are not constitutional. Women’s groups have also raised their concerns about the cyber sex provision which they say incriminates more than protects women.
“We will remain vigilant until this law is repealed. We are in mourning for the death of our freedom of expression both online and offline,” Tani added.
At the eve of the oral arguments, Carlos Celdran, a known cultural activist, was found guilty of “offending religious feeling” and is faced with two months to a year of imprisonment. The case was filed by Monsignor Nestor Cerbo of the Manila Cathedral after Celdran staged a protest inside the Manila Cathedral on September 30, 2010 after
“Our freedom to express ourselves is a right. People have risen and fought for this right and we saw in the Martial Law years how much people are willing to fight for it,” Ayeen Karunungan, PIFA Spokesperson and leader of the Dakila Artist Collective said.
“Now our fears that our freedom of expression is slowly being killed has come true and the government has proven that they are an instrument to this crime,” Karunungan added.
PIFA is 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 and who opposes RA 10175 which contains provisions that are oppressive, susceptible to abuse, and against the fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. It is an open alliance and anyone who share the same advocacy may join.
PRESS RELEASE
Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance (PIFA)
29 January 2013
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.
BLACK TUESDAY: RELOADED
PIFA Calls to Stop, not Pause Cyber Martial Law
The Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance (PIFA), made up of different organizations, netizens, and bloggers, held its first protest this year as it continues to fight for freedom of expression and against the Cybercrime Law.
The group revived its silent protest, the third since the passage of the said bill last year.
“This is our third Tuesday of silence. The Supreme Court must decide before everyone is unjustly silenced everyday.” Kenneth Keng, PIFA Spokesperson, said.
PIFA is the 15th petitioner against the Cybercrime Prevention Act or RA 10175. The grounds for the petition included: the law as a violation of the right to privacy, as a violation to equal protection, and as a violation to free speech. Individuals and organizations part of PIFA were the signatories of the said petition.
An online black-out also continues as support of the protest. People have once again changed their profile photos into black. Both the online and offline protests serve PIFA’s battle-cry, “Stop Cyber Martial Law!”
“The TRO given by the Supreme Court does not stop Cyber Martial Law, it has only been put into a pause. This means that losing our freedom of expression is just looming around the corner.” Ayeen Karunungan, also a spokesperson of PIFA, said.
PIFA calls for the repeal of the law. “The Cybercrime Law does not answer the problems we are facing in the Internet. We call for the repeal of the law and to craft a new one that will truly serve its purpose,” PIFA spokesperson, Red Tani, added.
PIFA is 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 and who opposes RA 10175 which contains provisions that are oppressive, susceptible to abuse, and against the fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. It is an open alliance and anyone who share the same advocacy may join.
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.
Come out Clean, SC told Activists warn of “PNoy’s Watergate” if TRO on Cybercrime Law ends
“Don’t stain your clean record.”
This is the message of activist group Sanlakas to Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno as it trooped in front of the Supreme Court a day before the first en banc session on the controversial Cybercrime Prevention Act.
With its members wearing white, Sanlakas asked the High Court to keep its track record clean and prove independence from Malacanang on the issue.
“Sereno has so far shown her autonomy from the President when she issued a temporary restraining order on the cybercrime law. She is facing her second test and we wish she will pass it with flying colors,” said Sanlakas National Spokesperson James Miraflor.
Miraflor, one of the petitioners against the law, expressed Sanlakas’ confidence on the Supreme Court process, but asked the netizens to remain vigilant during the remaining weeks of the restraining order.
“Cyber martial law was paused for the moment because people poured to streets and protested against it. We need to do it again if we are to permanently put a stop to this law,” Miraflor said.
Pnoy’s Watergate
Sanlakas warned that the TRO expiring during the campaign season for the 2013 elections allows for an Aquino version of a “Watergate scandal” to a happen.
“Imagine if this law becomes operational on February 6. If an unscrupulous government official decides to use the police to hack a political opponent’s device and get information, they can do so, and no one would even know it,” Miraflor said.
Sanlakas alludes to the Watergate Scandal that wracked the United States in 1972 and forced the resignation of incumbent Republican President Richard Nixon who just won a landslide victory in 1971.
Sanlakas explained that Watergate Scandal involved a systematic break-in and information theft on the opponents of the Nixon administration during the 1971 campaign period, which the government attempted to cover up.
“There is a real danger that the Cybercrime Prevention Act will be used ala Watergate to keep tabs on, and hack the devices of, politicians and activists running against administration candidates this 2013,” Miraflor warned.
“There is an imminent danger of fallout here, even if administration candidates eventually win. Will Aquino allow that?,” Miraflor asked.
FOI Instead
Sanlakas also asked the Aquino administration “not to waste its energies” trying to defend the law, and instead focus on making sure that the Freedom of Information Bill is passed.
“We don’t think it will be productive for the Palace to spend taxpayers money in rescuing a seriously flawed law when it has to rush its allies to pass a bill the people actually wants,” Miraflor said.
Sanlakas said that with the FOI taking effect during the campaign season of 2013 elections, voters can demand more information on candidates and will be able to vote better.
“What we need for 2013 elections is not a law which allows to government to spy on you, but law which empowers voters to check out the candidates,” Miraflor concluded.-30-
January 14, 2013
PRESS RELEASE
Contact Person: James Miraflor, National Spokesperson @ 0927-613-2068
Val De Guzman, Media Liason @ 0919-965-7509
Address: 115-D Barangay Paraiso, SFDM, QC
Telephone: 415-9400
Email: sanlakas14@ gmail.com
Follow us on twitter: sanlakas14.
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.
“Matuwid na Daan” gone astray… Cybercrime law affront to Human Rights
Jose W. Diokno said it well: Human rights are not mere legal concepts they are part of the human essence. Their violation is not the mere taking away of a man has. It is taking away of what a man is.
It is a pleasant thought but one that gets to be pondered only on occasions such as the Human Rights Day. The celebration of Human Rights Day today is cast against the background of more threatening concerns generated by P-Noy’s “Matuwid na Daan” which gone astray as well as that of the administration’s penchant on attacking civil liberty like the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 or Republic Act No. 10175. Thus this occasion however speaks of a terrible irony we have in our midst. As we celebrate Human Rights Day, lest we forget in the flurry of praying, candle lighting and speeches, is the danger posed by the Cybercrime Law to our civil liberties and to enjoyment of our human rights.
While the Cybercrime Law is designed to go after online crimes, “the provisions of the law that extend to libel and ‘other offenses’ violate established global norms of free expression.” The Philippines’ existing libel law is vague, criminalizing any speech deemed ‘critical,’ including information criticizing the government or other authorities.”
The right to information opens the door to all other human rights, as the core principles of human rights are interdependent and indivisible. Internet has become a vital communications tool which individuals can use to exercise their right to freedom of expression and, exchange information and ideas. Indeed, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a landmark resolution in June 2012 supporting freedom of expression on the Internet.
We at the HRonlinePH use the Internet as viable platform in the promotion and protection of human rights in the Philippines. We recognized that freedom of expression can be restricted in very exceptional cases like expression such as child pornography, violence against women, incitement to genocide, discrimination, hostility or violence and incitement to terrorism are all prohibited under international laws and statutes.
Some governments are using increasing sophisticated technologies which are often hidden from the public censor online content and monitor and identify individuals who disseminate critical information about the government, which more often than not lead to arbitrary arrests and detention of individuals. But the attempt to restrict Internet freedom must be in accordance with international human rights standards and must pursue legitimate grounds for restriction as set out in article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and “be proven to be necessary and proportionate.”
We should amplify our voice and increase our ranks in putting the Cybercrime Law back from the brink. The government should instead enact laws to protect human rights and to end impunity like the Anti-Enforced Disappearance Law, the Freedom of Information Act and the bill providing compensation to victims of human rights violations under Marcos regime.
We call on the Filipinos to stand up and defend our Right to Freedom of Expression, our Human Rights.
The recent arrest and maltreatment of Ms. Esperlita Garcia, environmentalist from Nueva Vizcaya has once again put the Cybercrime Law in question. More known as Perling, the 62-year old grandmother posted statements against a Chinese and Taiwanese firm on their mining operations, which was taken as “malicious and defamatory” by the latter which led her to be sued by no less than the Mayor of their town, Carlito Pentecostes.
While the case against Perling is said to be under the Revised Penal Code and not the Cybercrime Law, the fact still remains that Perling was arrested for a Facebook post that stated out factual events, only taken badly by a public official.
Time and again, the government has been saying that the Cybercrime Law will not be used against ordinary citizens and will not be used to trample on rights of Filipinos. Maybe the President will not use it against us nor will Sec. Leila de Lima of DOJ, but we, in Dakila, opponents of the Cybercrime Law, have been saying that someday, someone will and now, someone already has.
Digital media has become a force to reckon with and has contributed a lot to activism. Posts like Perling’s, no matter how factual, will always be found “malicious and defamatory” by those who are on the other side. But it is also posts like these that need to get out there and be known to the people. The Cybercime Law merely poses a hindrance for these kinds of information to reach citizens and will be abused by the powerful against the powerless.
We, netizens and digital activists, need to continue our vigilance over the Cybercrime Law and continue the pressure on public officials for its repeals because our fears against the Cybercrime Law are no longer just fears, they are slowly coming true and Cyber-Perling is but an early Halloween special. ##
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.
Greens slams arrest of activist due to Facebook post
MANILA, Philippines – The country’s largest environmental coalition slammed the recent arrest of an anti-mining activist in Cagayan province using a Facebook post as main evidence for a libel suit.
Green Convergence for Safe Food, Healthy Environment and Sustainable Economy (Green Convergence) in a statement condemned the arrest of Esperlita Garcia for the facts that she stated in Facebook about the destructive black sand mining in Gonzaga municipality and the local authorities unbecoming behavior in dealing with those who oppose mining.
“What is the basis of this arrest? Publicizing information is not libelous and should not be stopped whether it appears in print or online,” said Marie Marciano of Saniblakas ng Taongbayan Foundation (SALIKA), external vice president of Green Convergence.
“Surely, the Cybercrime Prevention Law does not mean to prevent such publication but if said Law were the purported basis for her arrest, the judge who issued the warrant for her arrest should have known that this Law has not taken effect as the Supreme Court has issued a 120-day Temporary Restraining Order on it,’ Marciano added.
‘Garcia’s arrest is clearly illegal and should not be tolerated by the Department of Justice nor by any freedom-loving Filipino.’
Garcia is president of Gonzaga Alliance for Environmental Protection and Preservation (GAEPP), network-member of the Federation of Environmental Advocates in Cagayan Province (FEAC) and the national alliance pushing for mining policy reforms, Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM). She is also a member of the board of trustees of Save Sierra Madre Network Alliance Inc. (SSMN) Both ATM and SSMNA Inc. are members of Green Convergence.
“In view of climate change, it is criminal to minimize by even an inch the stretch of land that serves as buffer between human settlements and the rising sea level,” explained Dr. Angelina Galang, environment professor at Miriam College and President of Green Convergence.
Galang said that it is terrible enough that local officials have been approving such business ventures which benefit only foreign countries where our land will be exported. To arrest a citizen who has been fighting against this activity and spreading awareness on the harm it has done is a great disservice to our country.
“Green Convergence, therefore, supports Esperlita Garcia in her brave campaign for our country’s environment and we call on President Benigno Aquino and the relevant government agencies to stop this obvious harassment and to correct this great injustice,” Galang concluded.
The environmental coalition also condemns the recent series of extra-judicial killings of anti-mining leaders in Mindanao and calls for an immediate investigation and moratorium of mining operations until all relevant policies and laws are put in place giving primacy to the conservation and protection of the environment and human rights.
GREEN CONVERGENCE is an environmental coalition of individuals, organizations and the following networks: Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM), Network Opposed to GMOs (NO to GMO), EcoWaste Coalition, Save Sierra Madre Network (SSMN), , Environmental Education Network of the Philippines (EENP), Justice, Peace, and Integrity of Creation Commission – Association of Major Religious Superiors of the Philippines (JPICC-AMRSP), Partnership for Clean Air, Earthday Network of the Philippines, Youth for Sustainable Development Assembly (YSDA), Civil Society Counterpart Council for Sustainable Development (CSC-CSD), Philippine Federation for Environmental Concerns (PFEC), among others.
For more information, please contact:
Dr. Angelina P. Galang, Green Convergence President – ninagalang@ymail.com – 09178538841
Marie Marciano, Green Convergence external VP – 09202735325
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.
Black Tuesday 2.0: Occupying Padre Faura for Internet Freedom, Campaign Goes International
PIFA October 9 Black Tuesday 2 at SC. Photo by PAHRA
The Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance (PIFA), made up of different organizations, netizens, and bloggers, occupied Padre Faura for the second time on Tuesday to uphold freedom of expression and pressure the Supreme Court to issue a temporary restraining order on the Cybercrime Prevention Act.
The group posed as criminal mugshots, holding letter boards which said, “RA 10175, nag-like sa Facebook,” “RA 10175, nag-retweet sa Twitter,” and other similar messages. Other members simply carried plain black placards and taped their mouths with black electrical tapes.
“If the government does nothing wrong then it has nothing to fear from freedom of speech,” Kenneth Keng, PIFA Spokesperson, said.
PIFA also submitted a petition for TRO yesterday, October 8. The grounds for the petition included: the law as a violation of the right to privacy, as a violation to equal protection, and as a violation to free speech. Individuals and organizations part of PIFA were the signatories of the said petition.
An online black-out also continues as support of the protest. Access, a global movement for digital freedom, has supported the cause and helped PIFA’s campaign go on an International level. “With broad and unjust cybercrime laws being enacted around the world, we need to fight them one by one. That’s why it’s critical that the international community stands together on Black Tuesday,” Access said on their website petition to Stop Cyber Martial Law. They have also blackened out their site.
“The threat to Internet freedom is not just an issue of the Philippines. There have been many threats to it worldwide, such as the SOPA and PIPA. What is important is that we stand up for our rights. If the world condemned SOPA and PIPA, the world will rally behind us in this fight against Cyber Martial Law,” Ayeen Karunungan, also a spokesperson of PIFA, said.
PIFA is 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 and who opposes RA 10175 which contains provisions that are oppressive, susceptible to abuse, and against the fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. It is an open alliance and anyone who share the same advocacy may join.
For more info, contact Kenneth Keng at 09157900018 or Ayeen Karunungan 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.
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.”
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.
Members of Akbayan Youth today hanged a banner on Welcome Rotonda expressing its opposition to the Cybercrime Prevention Act or Republic Act 10175. Akbayan Youth National Spokesperson JC Tejano today called on the youth to defend internet freedom as a necessary space for a growing democracy.
“With the law now taking effect and the Supreme Court yet to come out with a decision on the petitions questioning its validity, the youth must now take up the cudgels in the defense of internet freedom. The internet is the space where the youth interact, take a stand, and air their criticisms against public officials. However, this space is now getting constricted with the cybercrime law,” Tejano said.
Tejano explained that the law will only be used by politicians to silence their critics.
“We believe that the exercise of freedom of expression, including the right to criticize public figures online, are vital cogs in our democracy. It should not be hampered by the whims of politicians even in cyberspace. We fear that this cybercrime law will serve as the politicians’ fire-wall against public dissent and criticism,” Tejano said.
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.
BLACK TUESDAY 2.0 – PIFA & Netizens March to the Supreme Court to Protest Cybercrime Law
Last Tuesday, the nation and the rest of the world heard our deafening silence as we defended democracy and protested against Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
This coming Tuesday, October 9, join us again as we march to the Supreme Court and urge our justices to heed the the voice of the people and declare the Cybercrime Law unconstitutional.
Look for the group with the tarp that reads Stop Cyber Martial Law. In case we have left Padre Faura by the time you arrive, Supreme Court is only 50 meters or so down the street so you can meet us there.
If you can, please wear black.
We also call on the rest of our countrymen who cannot join us to show your solidarity by participating in the ONLINE BLACKOUT. Let your websites, social media accounts, profile photos, covers, etc. reflect the theme of our movement. You may use the hashtag #BlackTuesday
Petitioners unite as #NoToCybercrimeLaw to mount unified actions
By InterAksyon.com
October 6, 2012
MANILA, Philippines — Organizations and individuals who have filed petitions against the Cybercrime Prevention Act have agreed to join forces and mount concerted actions to press their demand to scrap the controversial statute, beginning with a rally before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, when they hope the tribunal to issue a ruling.
The petitioners — activist groups, freedom of expression advocates, media organizations, bloggers, lawyers and other sectors — agreed to call themselves by the hashtag #NoToCybercrimeLaw during a meeting at the University of the Philippines College of Law Saturday.
Among those represented at the meeting were the Kabataan party-list, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance, National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility and the law firm headed by lawyer Harry Roque.
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 new ‘cybercrime’ law in the Philippines poses serious risks to freedom of expression and must be reviewed, Amnesty International said.
Under the new law, known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 101750), a person could be sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for posting online comments judged to be libellous.
“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,” said Isabelle Arradon, deputy Asia director at Amnesty International.
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.
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.
MANILA, Philippines – Malacañang has set a dialogue with stakeholders on the controversial Cybercrime Law even as more groups stepped up calls to repeal the law on fears that it would be used to suppress online freedoms.
A dialogue was scheduled on Oct. 9 to allow all stakeholders to air their concerns about Republic Act 10175, presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda said.
The place and venue will be announced later, he said.
At the same time, Lacierda said he was not aware if the executive branch could still suspend the implementation of RA 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act since it was “called to implement it.”
“We are the executive branch, we execute. What the legislative branch can do, I understand, and I have seen from some tweets that are going around, is that they can issue a joint resolution. But I don’t know if they intend to do that,” Lacierda said.
Lacierda said he could ask Justice Secretary Leila de Lima if a suspension of the law’s implementation was possible at this time.
Lacierda said so far no case had been filed for online libel or any of the contentious provisions and there were portions that would have to be enforced immediately.
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, Filipinonetizens 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:
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.
Stop Cyber-dictatorship! SCRAP the cybercrime prevention act now!
CONTEXT
1. Historically, the Philippines–US bilateral relationship has always been an unequal and unjust partnership which almost constantly favors America and its global strategic interests. Politically, the Manila-Washington axis continues to be characterized by the former’s dependency on the latter as the Philippines remains chained to America’s economic conditional impositions. And from this material-conscious servitude to US imperialism, springs the Philippine ruling elite’s deliberately forged executive-legislative-judicial infrastructure, and their respective processes which are constitutionally skewed to uphold both countries’ ruling-class agendas. Hence, the Philippine state has long been a loyal copier of American laws and jurisprudence for over a century and still counting.
2. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the USA Patriot Act was swiftly passed by the US Congress in reaction to international terrorism. Until today, this law remains one of America’s most authoritarian and dangerously anti-democratic legal instruments in the hands of the US federal government. Indeed, it is actually a choice weapon of the US Government to fundamentally suppress any type of democratic freedoms, legitimate dissent, and free speech in direct violation of the principled rights inherent to the US Constitution’s First Amendment (part of Bill of Rights). As such, the USA Patriot Act officially provides the US Government with a sweeping authority to spy on individuals inside the United States, and in some instances, without any suspicion of wrongdoing at all.
3. The USA Patriot Act plus other similar American laws (i.e. the National Security Surveillance Act of 2006, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, etc.) presently form a collective set of federal government-controlled legal instruments that act as pillars to a nationally-coordinated state security-surveillance superstructure. The political-security thrust of this legally-upheld state-surveillance infrastructure is to suppress any existing or potential democratic dissent that may yet lead to the undermining of American national security interests as defined by Washington’s own ‘ruling circle of 1%’. The impact of this, however, is to instill a sense of mass fear among the general populace so as to ensure a higher level of compliance to the government’s assertions and to secure broader support towards American national unity in the face of international terrorism.
4. To be clear about this eminent danger, we should also not forget the unabashed and blatant readiness of the US Government to broaden its national state-security doctrinal space. For example, the recently killed bill to enact a Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) was a recent success story in mobilizing global mass support against a US Congress measure green-lighting cyber-suppression on a massive scale. However, this does not mean that the SOPA initiative is legislatively dead because it can yet be revived in another form and/or manner in the future. Likewise, another dangerous bill that was recently killed in the US Senate was the Cybersecurity Act of 2012. Both of these measures had strong provisions which would have given the US Government even more legal powers to greatly monitor and spy on unsuspecting ordinary netizens in defense of America’s national security. Had both bills been passed into law, the US state security-surveillance superstructure would have been gifted with more enormous powers to largely destroy established American democratic norms and values and with them, the people’s rights and freedoms.
5. Today, more than a decade after the Bush-II White House launched its ‘Global War of Terror’ to terrorize the world into submission, many countries continue to follow America’s lead in ‘state-terrorist legislation’, especially the Philippines. So far, around thirty-three countries allied with America in the Washington-led ‘Coalition of the Killing’ have already passed their own national counterpart versions of the USA Patriot Act. And in the Philippines, our very own Human Security Act of 2007 (the Anti-Terrorism Law/ATL) is a template copy of its American mother-law, including its provisions related to the electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists. Since the country’s old Anti-Subversion Law was repealed in September 1992, the ATL essentially became a replacement law and the first of a developing series of state security-surveillance pillars aping the American state-surveillance superstructure.
6. At present, a major global thrust of many states is to legislate pre-emptive protective measures to prevent their own citizenry from attempting to overthrow authoritarian, anti-democratic, illegitimate, and anti-poor people regimes in the future. A common trend in this area of democratic suppression is to initiate and enforce national laws related to the electronic surveillance of internet systems. The international impact of the wide-scale use of the internet and various social media platforms as transformational weapons during the 2011 Arab Revolutionary Upsurge have not been unnoticed by nervous governments. Thus, many reactionary states are now quickly reacting to disarm these cyber-weapons of mass democratization before their national leaderships are thrown from their shaky thrones by people’s power revolutions tomorrow.
CYBER-DICTATORSHIP
7. Both the Anti-Terrorism Law (ATL) and the Cybercrime Prevention Law (CPL) effectively reinforce the US imperialist global thrust to ultimately establish a worldwide infrastructure network of domestic laws aimed at protecting and strengthening national state-security-oriented regimes. This is being pursued by arming pro-US puppet-states with laws to protect themselves from possibly being overthrown by their own sovereign masses employing cyber technology-devices as tools for mass-mobilizing against tyrannical and anti-poor people regimes.
8. Wiretapping by state security forces remains illegal and the state is strictly mandated to uphold the anti-wiretapping law. However, the Cybercrime Prevention Law is today a clear and present weapon of the Philippine state because it now legalizes and legitimizes the wide-scale monitoring of ordinary citizens through cyber-surveillance. In fact, the SOPA provisions on internet monitoring are now silently operational within the legal parameters of the CPL. Thus, potential ‘enemies of the state’ from among the ordinary netizenry can now be selectively and/or wholly targeted by the state without their knowledge because the latter is now legally authorized to do so.
9. Reflective of the gross anti-democratic and authoritarian intentions of the USA Patriot Act, the CPL can already and deliberately be used by the Philippine state to suppress any form of organized democratic dissent and/or resistance (i.e. People’s Power) against the national government. The state can potentially use the CPL to unleash repression against organizations that use and/or rely on the internet system for maintaining the democratic balance while rallying popular support against an already illegitimately-viewed national government. In other words, before another EDSA People’s Power Revolutionary Uprising (or a Tahrir Square revolutionary mass insurrection) can occur, the Philippine state security forces, by applying the CPL, could instantly kill a future democratic revolution in order to uphold an illegitimate, repressive, and much-hated status quo.
10. As of now, Republic Act No. 10175 (the Cybercrime Prevention Law) is already in place as a ready weapon of the Philippine state and just awaiting Malacañang’s orders. Being the second pillar to the ATL’s first pillar as part of a budding overall state-surveillance superstructure in the Philippines, we must all be dreadfully alarmed at this frightful and dangerous trend imposed upon our people by the PNoy Regime. Following the structure and processes of its American counterparts, RA 10175 is now in legal effect and will soon be fully operational once the CPL’s Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) come out not later than December 11 of this year. And the moment the CPL becomes fully operational, several of its key provisions mirroring some of the US state-surveillance laws can have a long-term damaging impact, with some possible virtual collateral damage, across the Philippine internet community and our society at large.
11. In brief, the cyber-suppression powers of RA 10175 can be seen in at least three separate chapters of the CPL. The suppressive tendency and thrust of this law are mainly found in the following chapters: Chapter I (Preliminary Provisions), Chapter IV (Enforcement and Implementation), and Chapter VII (Competent Authorities). Together, these key chapters contain provisions which allow for a 24/7 spying by the Philippine state of ordinary citizens with the danger that the law may yet be abuse by state security forces in the name of ‘protecting national security’. Likewise, with the very close bilateral diplomatic relationship between Manila and Washington, the latter can easily rely on the Philippine state security-surveillance structure to arrest political activists and dissenters in the Philippines and have them extradited to the US on spurious charges through the use of laws such as the Anti-Terrorism Law and the Cybercrime Prevention Law.
12. This law is a form of cyber-dictatorship. It was signed into law just nine days before our country and people commemorated and remembered the 40th year after the fascist-Marcos Dictatorship was imposed upon our masses in a brutal and bloody manner. Ironically, RA No. 10175 was signed by President Noynoy Aquino who happens to be the son of two prominent victims of Martial Law—the late Senator Ninoy Aquino and former President Cory Aquino. Thus, this act itself is felt by many to be a direct injustice to his parents and family, and also especially to the millions of masses who suffered the long night of tyrannical rule and injustice in the Philippines from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986, and even beyond that historic period.
13. SANLAKAS, therefore, calls on the Supreme Court to urgently and immediately strike down this anti-democratic law. We, likewise, call on the Filipino masses to join us and other progressive and allied organizations, such as the newly-formed PIFA (Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance), in a nationwide mass campaign to repeal the CPL and to replace it with a future law that will be the genuine fruit of a truly collective, transparent, and democratic law-making process. Ultimately, this act should directly involve all the concerned stakeholders and aimed at defending our basic democratic rights and freedoms. Never again shall a dictatorship rule over us and suppress our rights in yet another form! No to Cyber-Dictatorship! Stop the Cybercrime Prevention Act now!
Iboto ang iyong #HRPinduterosChoice para sa HR NETWORKS 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!
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.
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.
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.
(New York, September 28, 2012) – A new Philippine “cybercrime” law drastically increases punishments for criminal libel and gives authorities excessive and unchecked powers to shut down websites and monitor online information, Human Rights Watch said today. President Benigno Aquino III signed the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 into law on September 12, 2012.
The law’s criminal penalties for online libel and other restrictions are a serious threat to free expression in the Philippines, Human Rights Watch said. Several legal cases have been filed in the Philippines Supreme Court, including for the law to be declared unconstitutional because it violates guarantees to free expression contained in the Philippines constitution and human rights treaties ratified by the Philippines.
“The cybercrime law needs to be repealed or replaced,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “It violates Filipinos’ rights to free expression and it is wholly incompatible with the Philippine government’s obligations under international law.”
The new law defines several new acts of “cybercrime.” Among the acts prohibited are “cybersex,” online child pornography, illegal access to computer systems or hacking, online identity theft, and spamming.
A section on libel specifies that criminal libel, already detailed in article 355 of the Philippines Revised Penal Code, will now apply to acts “committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.” The new law drastically increases the penalty for computer-related libel, with the minimum punishment raised twelve-fold, from six months to six years. The maximum punishment is doubled from six to twelve years in prison.
“Anybody using popular social networks or who publishes online is now at risk of a long prison term should a reader – including government officials – bring a libel charge,” Adams said. “Allegedly libelous speech, online or offline, should be handled as a private civil matter, not a crime.”
Human Rights Watch called on the Philippines government to repeal its existing criminal libel law. The Aquino administration has shown little inclination to support legislation pending in the Philippine Congress to decriminalize libel.
Aside from the section on libel, the new law has a provision that grants new powers to the Department of Justice, which on its own and without a warrant, can order the shutdown of any website it finds violating the law. It also authorizes police to collect computer data in real time without a court order or warrant.
The use of criminal defamation laws also has a chilling effect on the speech of others, particularly those involved with similar issues, Human Rights Watch said.
When citizens face prison time for complaining about official performance, corruption, or abusive business practices, other people take notice and are less likely to draw attention to such problems themselves, undermining effective governance and civil society.
Several journalists in the Philippines have been imprisoned for libel in recent years, leaving a blot on the country’s record on press freedom. In the case of Davao City radio journalist Alexander Adonis, who was convicted in 2007 of libel and spent two years in prison, the United Nations Human Rights Committee determined that the Philippine government violated article 19 on the right to freedom of expression and opinion of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The committee called on the Philippine government to decriminalize libel.
“So long as it stands, the new cybercrime law will have a chilling effect over the entire Philippine online community,” Adams said.
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.
Lawyers, bloggers urge takedown of Cybercrime Law
SHAIRA PANELA, GMA NEWS
September 26, 2012
With one of the biggest and most active online communities in the world, the Philippines stands much to gain —or lose— from the enactment and implementation of the controversial Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175), which was signed into law last September 12.
International social media research group Socialbakers ranked the Philippines as the eigth largest country in the world in terms of number of Facebook users, with more than 29 million Pinoys on the social network. The country is also the tenth largest nation on Twitter, with over 9.5 million users.
It is in this context a petition for certiorari and prohibition was filed before the Supreme Court on September 25 by lawyers Jose Jesus “JJ” Disini, Jr., Rowena S. Disini, and Liane Ivy P. Medina; and bloggers Ernesto Sonido Jr. and Janette Toral.
According to the petitioners, the Cybercrime Act violates Constitutional provisions on the “freedom of expression, due process, equal protection, privacy of communications, double jeopardy, and right against unreasonable searches and seizure.”
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.
Groups, bloggers ask PNoy to veto cybercrime bill
J. M. Tuazon, InterAksyon.com
February 1, 2012
MANILA, Philippines — Various groups and Internet users have called on President Benigno Aquino III not to sign the proposed Cybercrime Prevention Act, saying that some provisions in the bill could only do more harm than good.
The uproar against the proposed measure came just a day after the upper chamber of Congress passed Senate Bill 2796 on third reading, with majority of Senators voting to pass the bill.
The lower house, on the other hand, has yet to take up its version of the bill on second reading.
Consumer group TXTPower, in a statement, said the bill looks less about preventing cybercrimes than an “orchestrated attempt to control and limit Internet use.”
“Under the bills, government would have the power to take down, sans a court order, websites at anytime and anywhere if authorities find alleged prima facie evidence of offenses,” the group said.
The group added that the bills have “serious and grave threats” to the privacy of Filipino Internet users, especially with provisions allowing government to take and preserve traffic data for a period of time.
“For example, under the Senate version, the government would have the power to retain all user-identifiable data for a period of six months, from as many individuals it could possibly tag as suspected cybercriminals,” said TXTPower.
UP College of Law’s Internet and Society Program Director Atty. JJ Disini pointed out that as written, the proposed legislation puts too much power under the Department of Justice (DOJ), which would act as the coordinating agency for the government’s anti-cybercrime efforts.
“Under the bill, the DOJ can issue an order [to take and restrict access to data] should it be found as prima facie evidence for a violation,” Disini said. “In effect, the DOJ’s power is even greater than the court’s power.”
The Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance (PIFA) continues its protest against the Cybercrime Law as the oral arguments resumed at the Supreme Court today after it has suspended its oral arguments last week.
Human Rights Online Philippines 