Working Draft of the Monograph on the

Philippine Anti-Cybercrime Law Struggle

(for internal discussion, June 7, 2015)
Prepared by Carlos O. Tulali

1. What is the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012? (12 pages max)

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, officially recorded as Republic Act No.
10175, is a law in the Philippines approved on September 12, 2012. It aims to
address legal issues concerning online interactions and the Internet in the
Philippines. Among the cybercrime offenses included in the bill are
cybersquatting, cybersex, child pornography, identity theft, illegal access to data
and libel.
a. History and timeline when it was first proposed, who proposed it, what
happened during the past Congress why it didnt get through (1 page)
Here is a timeline of developments that happened through the years involving
the struggles of many in pushing for a cybercrime legislation 1 2 3.
Year 2000
When the E-Commerce Law (Republic Act 8792) was passed, the Philippines
then was considered as one of the countries with advance legislation in
prosecuting cybercrime. As the legislation was only passed last June 2000, it
wasnt able to prosecute Onel De Guzman who is believed to be the culprit
behind the I Love You Virus as the cybercrime got committed a month prior to
the laws passage.
The I Love You Virus case brought us to the reality of how global cybercrime
can be where prosecution in one country may not be sufficient when majority
of victims maybe residing in another location. The said virus caused damage
from US$2 to 5 billion.

1 Toral, J. (2012). Timeline: Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012: A Law 11 Years in the Making, DgitalFilipino.com, October
6. (availabe at http://digitalfilipino.com/timeline-cybercrime-prevention-act-of-2012-a-law-11-years-in-the-making/)

2 Ilagan, K.A.M. (2012). 15th Congress: The Morphing of the Cybercrime Prevention Law, Philippine Center for
Investigative Journalism, September 28. (available at: http://pcij.org/stories/the-morphing-of-the-cybercrime-prevention-law/)

3 Tubadeza, K.M. (2012). Anti-Cybercrime law timeline: The law that launched a thousand memes, Businessworld Online,
October 20. (available at: http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Beyond&title=Anti-Cybercrime-law-timeline:Thelaw-that-launched-a-thousand-memes-&id=59817)

Efforts in registering the Philippine Computer Emergency Response Team (PHCERT) started with the support of the National Computer Center.
Year 2001 2002
Nearly two years after the laws passage, a growing number of hacking attacks
and cybercrimes were recorded. Most victims do not file a complaint for lack of
clarity on how the process works. Law enforcement was lagging behind due to
lack of resources as the law did not specifically provided for it.
In 2001, a Convention on Cybercrime was proposed encouraging countries with
cybercrime legislation to become a signatory. Countries with cybercrime
legislation will pave the way for hackers who have caused havoc to be
accountable in countries where he or she has cause damage. As the Philippines
did not have one, it cant participate in these efforts.
Philippine Computer Emergency Response Team (PH-CERT) was launched at
One Internet Day 2001.
However, a Anti-Cybercrime bill (2001) was filed as early as then by former
Congressman Eric D. Singson. In the Senate, Senator Ramon Magsaysay Jr. was
also a supporter of the said legislation.
First Internet libel case filed when DotPH CEO Joel Disini sued Fernando
Contreras Jr. of Philippine Domain Authority Convenors. Both parties used
electronic documents against each other as evidence in court. The case was
dismissed for lack of evidence.
Year 2003
Another Cybercrime bill was filed in 2003 that is seen as a complement to the
E-Commerce Law and Intellectual Property Code.
A growing number of companies are coming out as well announcing cases they
have filed against local scammers and hackers taking advantage of Filipino ecommerce sites. TSSI in 2003, with the cooperation of authorities, entrapped 3
suspected money remittance service fraudster who uses stolen credit cards to
load money in the service.
With the growing number of crimes, organizations such as the Philippine
Computer Emergency Response Team (PH-CERT) took on the advocacy of
pushing for the passage of a Cybercrime legislation.
Year 2004
The growth of home-based workers and BPO industries further strengthen the
need for a Cybercrime Law as it is seen a factor in contributing to the future
growth of this sector. This is important as investors have a lot of choices in the
region and having an efficient cybercrime legislation is seen as critical.
Although most legislations around the world are local in application by nature.
2

Year 2005
First cybercrime conviction happened with JJ Maria Giner convicted under the ECommerce Law for hacking the governments .gov.ph site. (Criminal Case No.
419672-CR filed at Branch 14 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila under
Judge Rosalyn Mislos-Loja)
On its 10th revision, the Cybercrime Prevention Bill was revised and covered
cellphone transactions and anti-spam measures. The International Intellectual
Property Alliance saw the Cybercrime bill as an important measure in fighting
copyright piracy on the Internet.
Data Privacy legislation need became evident this year for outsourcing
competitiveness.
Year 2006
In 2006, the enactment of a cybercrime legislation was also included in the
countrys ICT roadmap.
Year 2007
The CICT took a proactive role in advocating for various laws such as the
Cybercrime Bill. Various groups also participated in hearings and consultation
on various ICT policies.
Growth in cybersex and child trafficking rings were noted. Worries that not
having a Cybercrime Law will make the Philippines a haven for individuals
engage in various cybercrime. The DOJ believes that the proposed law should
not duplicate other laws to avoid giving an escape clause for offenders.
Interest surge for a law also happened this year when the site Boy Bastos got
Senator Loren Legardas attention as it linked to porn and sex scandal videos.
He was caught but was later released for lack of law covering cyberpornography.
An International Conference on Cybercrime took place this year that paved the
way for a consolidated Cybercrime bill. Internet piracy provisions were also
considered.
Efforts to form a Government Security Incident Response Team (GSIRT) started.
However, as in the past years, cybercrime legislation was observed to be of low
priority.
Year 2008
As the years and technology has evolved, the E-Commerce Law was deemed
lacking in prosecuting a growing number of forms of cybercrime as
3

technologies evolve. The lack of a law also unable the country to participate in
conventions that intends to facilitate mutual cooperation.
It was noted 87% of emails Filipino received this year were spam.
Law enforcement was also becoming impatient as much is expected from them
but the lack of law is preventing them from making progress. Although
investigation methodology improvements were being made continuously.
CICT proceeded in endorsing its Cybercrime Bill versions.
Senator Manny Villar also filed his version of Anti-Cybercrime Act. Former
Congressman Joseph Santiago also has counterpart Cybercrime bills.
The first case filed this year involved stealing of company secrets.
First public key infrastructure seminar also happened this year which done to
support plans for a National Public Key Infrastructure.
Guidelines for Habeas Data came out this year.
Year 2009
Need for a Cybercrime bill got a renewed boost this year when the Katrina Hall
and Hayden Kho sex scandal went viral as it involves computer theft and
unauthorized access to information that got posted online.
CICT formed its own cybercrime unit.
Senator Antonio Trillianes IV filed his version of Cybercrime Bill.
Committee report on the Cybercrime Bill (report #770 resulting to Senate Bill
3553) were referred to the Committee on Rules this year. House Bill 6794 got
approved. Legislators exerted effort to fast track it.
Atty. Geronimo Sy sees constant advocacy as key to push for legislation
passage.
Year 2010
In 2010, Norton reported that 9 out of 10 Filipinos are victims of various forms
of cybercrime ranging from hacking attacks to online scams.
PH-CERT also renewed calls for the passage of Cybercrime Bill. It was passed at
the House of Representatives but got stalled in the Senate due to the election
season.
Year 2011

Committee Report on Cybercrime Bill was submitted to the House of

Representatives.
May 11, 2011: Senate Bill (SB) No. 2796 or "An Act Defining Cybercrime,
Providing for Prevention, Investigation and Imposition of Penalties Therefore
and for Other Purposes" was tackled on the Senate floor for the first time with
the bill's author, Senator Edgardo J. Angara, delivering sponsorship speech of
SB 2796 under Committee Report No. 30.
December 12, 2011: Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III asked if SB 2796
"covers acts such as sending coarse and offensive comments against someone
via Twitter and Facebook."
Senator Edgardo J. Angara then said "with proper authorization, the NBI and
PNP forensic experts can trace the source even if anonymous names were
used."
When asked if "ones reputation can easily be ruined and damaged by posts
and comments in social network sites," Mr. Angara "stated that under the
proposed law, the offended party can sue the person responsible for posting
such comments."
Year 2012
The principal author of Republic Act 10715 is Senator Edgardo Angara.
However, the heavily debated section of the Bill, which is the provision for
online libel, was inserted without the knowledge of other legislators, by Senator
Tito S. Sotto, who prior the passing of the bill, has been lashed by the public for
reportedly lifting texts and excerpts from certain online blogs.
January 24, 2012: Mr. Sotto proposed the insertion of a paragraph on libel and
was accepted by Mr. Angara.
Feb. 9, 2012: Committee Report No. 01818 was submitted by the Committee
on Information and Communications Technology, recommending its approval.
H.B. No. 5808 also substituted for H.B. Nos. 00085, 00167, 00364, 00383,
00511, 01444, 02279, 03376, 04031, and 04162.
Feb. 13, 2012: House Bill No. 5808 was referred to the Committee on Rules.
May 9, 2012: Sponsorship, interpellations, and amendments were made.
Kabataan Party-List Rep. Raymond V. Palatino and ACT Teachers Party-List Rep.
Antonio L. Tinio made interpellations. The bill was approved on second reading.
May 15, 2012: The bill was recommitted and reconsidered. The reconsidered
measure was approved.
Remark of Bill History: Adopted the Explanatory Note as the sponsorship
remarks.
5

May 21, 2012: The bill was approved on third reading with 211 yeas and zero
nay.
May 23, 2012: House Bill No. 5808 was transmitted to and received by the
Senate.
May 30, 2012: Date requested and agreed to form a conference committee.
House of Representatives requested that the conference committee be
convened.
June 4, 2012: House agreed on Conference Committee Report.
June 5, 2012: Senate agreed on Conference Committee Report.
Aug. 15, 2012: The bill was transmitted to President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino
III.
Sept. 12, 2012: The bill was signed into law by the President.
Republic Act 10715, or also known as the Cybercrime prevention act of 2012
was signed into law by incumbent Philippine president, Benigno C. Aquino on
September 12, 2012. Prior to 2012, no laws exist specifically criminalizes
computer crime. Although certain laws exist such as Republic Act No. 8792
known as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, it merely regulated certain
computer related activities, however these existing laws does not account for
the criminalizing of the crimes that have been done over a computer .
b. Why should there be a cybercrime law (2 page)
All over the Philippines, there are millions of people using the internet every
day. The internet has become such an integral part of all the peoples lives
that almost everyone in the country is a part of the netizen community. With
the internet, everyone is able to connect with all their friends and family all
over the world; people are also able to do their work and play all sorts of
games online. But over the past few years, the amount of crimes being done
over the internet has been steadily increasing.
The crimes committed over the internet have been so frequent and numerous
recently that the government saw it fit to take action to be able to protect the
people online. In finding a solution as to how to decrease cybercrime in the
Philippines, the government came up with the Cybercrime Bill. It is because of
all the types of crime being done over the internet that the government
decided to create a bill such as that. Crimes like plagiarism, child
pornography, identity theft, and many more have been rampant over the net
that the government saw the need to draft the Cybercrime Bill to help lessen
all these crimes4.
4 Sarmiento, D. (2012). Reasons why the cybercrime bill was drafted, POLISCI, Online Cybercrime Law Informational
Website. (available at: https://sites.google.com/site/cybercrimelaw101/archives/reasons)

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is the first law in the Philippines which
specifically criminalizes computer crime, which prior to the passage of the law
had no strong legal precedent in Philippine jurisprudence. While laws such as
the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 (Republic Act No. 8792 regulated certain
computer-related activities, these laws did not provide a legal basis for
criminalizing crimes committed on a computer in general: for example, Onel
de Guzman, the computer programmer charged with purportedly writing the
ILOVEYOU computer worm, was ultimately not prosecuted by Philippine
authorities due to a lack of legal basis for him to be charged under existing
Philippine laws at the time of his arrest.
c. How it has been passed, who voted for it, who didnt vote for it? (1 page)
The initial draft of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 started in 2002 from
the former Information Technology and eCommerce Council (ITECC) Legal and
Regulatory Committee chaired by Atty. Claro Parlade and its Information
Security and Privacy subcommittee co-chaired by Albert Dela Cruz of PHCERT
and Atty. Elfren Meneses of the NBI. ITECC was established under the
presidency of Joseph Estrada, and continued during the term of President
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. It was headed by Secretary Virgilio 'Ver' Pea, the
first Chair of the former Commission on Communications and Information
Technology (CICT), and was an attempt to harmonize the U.S. Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act, the EU Cybercrime Prevention Treaty or Budapest Convention
on Cybercrime, Pending House and Senate bills. It was originally known as
proposed bill HB377.
This was superseded by several cybercrime-related bills filed in the 14th and
15th Congress. The Cybercrime Prevention Act ultimately was the product of
House Bill No. 5808, authored by Representative Susan Yap-Sulit of the second
district of Tarlac and 36 other co-authors, and Senate Bill No. 2796, proposed
by Senator Edgardo Angara. Both bills were passed by their respective
chambers within one day of each other on June 5 and 4, 2012, respectively,
shortly after the impeachment of Renato Corona, and the final version of the
Act was signed into law by President Benigno Aquino III on September 12.
The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is authored by Reps. Susan Yap (2nd
District, Tarlac), Eric Owen Singson, Jr. (2nd District, Ilocos Sur), Marcelino
Teodoro (1st District, Marikina City) and Juan Edgardo Angara (Lone District,
Aurora). Other authors of the bill are Reps. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (2nd
District, Pampanga), Diosdado Arroyo (2nd District, Camarines Sur), Carmelo
Lazatin (1st District, Pampanga), Rufus Rodriguez (2nd District, Cagayan de
Oro City), Maximo Rodriguez, Jr. (Party-list, Abante Mindanao), Mariano Michael
Velarde and Irwin Tieng (Party-list, BUHAY), Romeo Acop (2nd District, Antipolo
City), Bernadette Herrera-Dy (Party-list, Bagong Henerasyon), Anthony
Rolando Golez (Lone District, Bacolod City), Juan Miguel Macapagal-Arroyo
(Party-list, Ang Galing Pinoy), Ma. Amelita Calimbas-Villarosa (Lone District,
Occidental Mindoro), Antonio Del Rosario (1st District, Capiz), Winston Castelo

(2nd District, Quezon City), Eulogio Magsaysay (Party-list, AVE), Sigfrido Tinga
(2nd District, Taguig City), Roilo Golez (2nd District, Paraaque City), Romero
Federico Quimbo (2nd District, Marikina City), Mel Senen Sarmiento (1st
District, Western Samar), Cesar Sarmiento (Lone District, Catanduanes), Daryl
Grace Abayon (Party-list, Aangat Tayo), Tomas Apacible (1st District,
Batangas), Jerry Treas (Lone District, Iloilo City), Joseph Gilbert Violago (2nd
District, Nueva Ecija), Hermilando Mandanas (2nd District, Batangas), Ma.
Rachel Arenas (3rd District, Pangasinan) and Ma. Victoria Sy-Alvarado (1st
District, Bulacan).
For the record, the following senators voted to pass the law:
1) Sen. Tito Sotto
2) Sen. Bong Revilla
3) Sen. Manny Villar
4) Sen. Lito Lapid
5) Sen. Koko Pimentel
6) Sen. Jinggoy Estrada
7) Sen. Loren Legarda
8) Sen. Chiz Escudero
9) Sen. Ping Lacson
10)
Sen. Gringo Honasan
11)
Sen. Pia Cayetano
12)
Sen. Bongbong Marcos
13)
Sen. Ralph Recto
d. The provisions (2 pages)
The Republic Act No. 10175, also known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of
2012, is an act that defines and punishes cybercrime to prevent and suppress
its proliferation. It aims to effectively prevent and combat misuse, abuse and
illegal access of the Internet by facilitating their detection, investigation, arrest
and prosecution at both the domestic and international levels, and by providing
arrangements for fast and reliable international cooperation. To formulate and
implement a national cyber security plan, a Cybercrime Investigation and
Coordinating Center (CICC) will be created under the administrative supervision
of the Office of the President.
The Act, divided into 31 sections split across eight chapters, criminalizes
several types of offense, including illegal access (hacking), data interference,
device misuse, cybersquatting, computer-related offenses such as computer
fraud, content-related offenses such as cybersex and spam, and other offenses.
The law also reaffirms existing laws against child pornography, an offense
under Republic Act No. 9779 (the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009), and
libel, an offense under Section 355 of the Revised Penal Code of the
Philippines, also criminalizing them when committed using a computer system.
Finally, the Act includes a "catch-all" clause, making all offenses currently
punishable under the Revised Penal Code also punishable under the Act when
committed using a computer, with severer penalties than provided by the
Revised Penal Code alone.
8

The Act has universal jurisdiction: its provisions apply to all Filipino nationals
regardless of the place of commission. Jurisdiction also lies when a punishable
act is either committed within the Philippines, whether the erring device is
wholly or partly situated in the Philippines, or whether damage was done to
any natural or juridical person who at the time of commission was within the
Philippines. Regional Trial Courts shall have jurisdiction over cases involving
violations of the Act.
Section 23 of Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
provides for the creation of an Office of Cybercrime (OOC) within the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and is designated as the central authority in all
matters related to international mutual assistance and extradition for
cybercrime matters. It also mandates the establishment of special "cybercrime
courts" which will handle cases involving cybercrime offenses (offenses
enumerated in Section 4(a) of the Act).
The Supreme Court of the Philippines declared on February 18, 2014 that the
libel provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is constituional.
Punishable acts
Offenses punishable under Cybercrime Prevention Act are:
- Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of
computer data and systems
- Illegal access to the whole or any part of a computer system without
rights
- Illegal interception of any non-public transmission of computer data to,
from, or within a computer system
- Data interference such as alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration
of data without rights, including the introduction or transmission of
viruses
- System (computer or computer network) interference
- Cyber-squatting or the acquisition of a domain name over the Internet in
bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy reputation, and deprive others from
registering the same
- Misuse of devices
Computer-related offenses:
- Computer-related forgery (input, alteration, or deletion of data) without
rights resulting in inauthentic data, with the intent that it be considered
or acted upon for legal purposes as if it were authentic
- Computer-related fraud (input, alteration, or deletion of data or
interference in the functioning of a computer system) causing damage
- Computer-related identity theft or the acquisition, use, misuse, transfer,
possession, alteration or deletion of the identifying information of
another person
Content-related offenses:

Cybersex or the engagement, maintenance, control, or operation of any

lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a
computer system
Child pornography or the unlawful acts as defined and punishable by
Republic Act No. 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009
committed through a computer system
Unsolicited commercial communications which seek to advertise, sell, or
offer for sale products and services
Libel or unlawful acts as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code

Others:
- Aiding or abetting in the commission of cybercrime
- Attempt in the commission of cybercrime
Penalties
Any person found guilty of committing cybercrime acts enumerated in the first
two groups shall be punished with prision mayor, or serving of six years and
one day to twelve12 years in prison, or a fine of at least PHP 200,000 up to PHP
500,000.
A person found guilty of committing punishable acts enumerated in the first
group shall be punished with reclusion temporal, or serving of 12 years and
one day to 20 years in prison, or a fine of at least PHP 500,000 up to the
maximum amount in proportion to the damage incurred, or both.
A person found guilty of committing cybersex shall be punished with prision
mayor, or serving of six years and one day to 12 years in prison, or a fine of at
least PHP 200,000 but not exceeding PHP 1,000,000, or both.
A person found guilty of committing child pornography shall be punished with
the penalties enumerated in the Republic Act No. 9775 or the Anti-Child
Pornography Act of 2009.
A person found guilty of committing unsolicited commercial communications
shall be punished with arresto mayor, or serving of one month and one day to
six months, or a fine of at least PHP 50,000 but not exceeding PHP 250,000, or
both.
A person found guilty of committing other offenses enumerated in the last
group shall be punished with imprisonment one degree lower than that of the
prescribed penalty for the offense, or a fine of at least PHP 100,000 but not
exceeding PHP 500,000, or both.
Corporate liability
If any of these offenses are knowingly committed by a natural person on behalf
of or for the benefit of a juridical person, the latter shall be held liable for fines
enumerated above up to a maximum of PHP 10,000,000.

10

If, for the benefit of the juridical person, the offense was made possible
because of a natural person's failure to supervise or control, the former shall be
held liable for fines enumerated above up to a maximum of PHP 5,000,000.
Enforcement and implementation
Law enforcement authorities, such as the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
and the Philippine National Police (PNP) shall be responsible for the
implementation of the provisions of this Act.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) shall be responsible for assisting in
investigations or proceedings concerning criminal offenses related to computer
systems or data, in collection of electronic evidence of criminal offense, and in
ensuring that the provisions of the law are complied with.
e.

Its connection to the Budapest Convention (1 page)

In the realm of international cooperation, the Department of Justice (DOJ)
officially endorsed the Philippines accession to the Council of Europes
Convention on Cybercrime, also known as the Budapest Convention. The treaty
became the vehicle to harmonize cybercrime definitions and promoted
international cooperation in cybercrime enforcement and investigation. After
all, the Budapest Convention was signed by many countries in Europe and
even counted non-EU countries such as the United States, Canada, Japan,
China and South Africa as among its member-states. It was against this
backdrop that various cybercrime bills were deliberated upon, in both houses
of the Philippine Congress.
The Philippines was invited to accede to the Budapest Convention on 15 June
2011 without objection from member countries and annually invited to join the
Octopus Conferences. The Philippines substantially adopted the international
definition of cybercrimes by the Council of Europe and assisted the decisionmaker to uphold the same by enacting a cybercrime law.
On 12 September 2012, the Philippine Congress enacted Republic Act (R.A.) No.
10175 or Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 which completely addresses
crimes committed against and by means of computer system. The law focuses
on the pre-emption, prevention and prosecution of cybercrimes such as
offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data
and systems, computer-related offenses, and content-related offenses.
The law provides procedural measures to be undertaken by law enforcement
authorities mandated by the law to enforce and implement its provisions. To
ensure that the technical nature of cybercrime and its prevention is given focus
and the procedures involved for international cooperation considered, law
enforcement authorities specifically the computer or technology crime divisions
responsible for the investigation of cybercrimes are required to submit timely
and regular reports including pre-operation, post-operation and investigation
results and such other
11

documents as may be required to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for review

and monitoring.5
Salient features
The salient features of the Act include internationally consistent definitions for
certain cybercrimes, nuanced liability for perpetrators of cybercrimes,
increased penalties, greater authority granted to law enforcement authorities,
expansive jurisdictional authority to prosecute cybercrimes, provisions for
international cybercrime coordination efforts and greater ability to combat
cybercrimes.
Indeed, many of the cybercrimes defined under the Act hewed closely to the
Budapest Convention and it borrowed heavily from the conventions definition
of illegal access and interception, data and system interference, misuse of
devices, computer-related forgery and computer-related fraud 6.
f.

Profiles of supporters (1-2 page)

The local business process outsourcing industry has received the new law well,
citing an increase in the confidence of investors due to measures for the
protection of electronic devices and online data7

2. The #notocybercrimelaw #StopCyberMartialLaw struggle (25 pages maximum)

a.

Why people protested against it (5-7 pages)

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 received mixed reactions from several
sectors upon its enactment, particularly with how its provisions could
potentially affect freedom of expression, freedom of speech and data security
in the Philippines.
Immediately after it was passed on 12 September 2012, the Philippines
Cybercrime Prevention Act was met with a flurry of legal challenges from
journalists and civil society organisations in the country. An analysis by the
Centre for Law and Democracy confirms and supports their concerns, finding
that the law perpetrates significant violations of international standards on
freedom of expression.

5 Department of Justice, Office of Cybercrime (2015). Philippines 2014-2015 Cybercrime Report, The Rule of Law in
Cyberspace, March 15. DOJ: Manila (available at https://www.doj.gov.ph/files/cybercrime_office/20142015_Annual_Cybercrime_Report.pdf)

6 Disini, J.J. (2012). Cybercrime Act: Features and issues, Philippine Daily Inquirer, October 6. (available at:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/38218/cybercrime-act-features-and-issues)

7 Agcaoili, L. (2012). "IT-BPO industry welcomes passage of Cybercrime Prevention Act". The Philippine Star, September 20.
(available at http://www.philstar.com/cybercrime-law/2012/9/20/850809/it-bpo-industry-welcomes-passage-of-cybercrimeprevention-act)

12

Some of the more serious problems cited in the analysis are that the
Cybercrime Prevention Act:
- extends existing criminal rules, including the countrys already
problematic criminal defamation laws, to the Internet with no
consideration of the specific implications of this, in most cases imposes
even harsher penalties;
- grants law enforcement sweeping surveillance powers and requires the
Department of Justice to block websites in cases of prima facie breach of
the Act;
- grants Philippine authorities vast jurisdiction to police the Internet;
- criminalises mere recklessness and cybersquatting; and
- imposes very extensive data retention requirements on service providers 8.
Critics of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 had particularly called for
the scrapping of internet libel as it tramples on the basic freedom of speech.
Kabataan party-list said that the entire law should have been declared
unconstitutional. Kabataan party-list Representative Terry Ridon said in a
report that they wanted to start from scratch to deliberate on a new
cybercrime law without the unconstitutional provisions.
b. Who protested against it (1-2 pages)
Media organizations and legal institutions though have criticized the Act for
extending the definition of libel as defined in the Revised Penal Code of the
Philippines, which has been criticized by international organizations as being
outdated:[10] the United Nations for one has remarked that the current
definition of libel as defined in the Revised Penal Code is inconsistent with the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and therefore violates the
respect of freedom of expression9.
There were other several local organizations, who joined the global call for
the end to arbitrary and mass surveillance and collection of personal data,
and support the struggle to repeal Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012:
-Foundation for Media Alternatives
- Asia-Pacific Solidarity Coalition (APSOC)
- Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance
- Womens Legal and Human Rights Bureau
- Dakila Artist Collective
- Initiatives for International Dialogue (IID)
- Gender and Development Advocates (GANDA) Filipinas
- LGBTS Christian Church
8 Centre for Law and Democracy (2012). Philippines: Analysis finds major problems in cybercrime law, November 22.
(available at http://www.law-democracy.org/live/philippines-analysis-finds-major-problems-in-cybercrime-law/)

9 Tiongson, F.L. (2012). "Libel law violates freedom of expression UN rights panel",
The Manila Times, January 30. (available
at.http://www.manilatimes.net/index.php/news/top-stories/16100-libel-law-violatesfreedom-of-expression--un-rights-panel)
13

Association of Transgender People in the Philippines (ATP)

Human Rights Online Philippines
Youth for Rights
Piglas Kabataan
KAISA Nagkakaisang Iskolar para sa Pamantasan at Sambayanan
UP Internet Freedom Association
Sanlakas
Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP)
Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA)

c.

What happened/What were the forms of protests (2-4 pages)

d.

FMA getting in the forefront of the struggle (2-3 pages)

e.
The Birth of the Internet Freedom movement in the Philippines PIFA (2-3
pages)
3. Cyber Martial Law TROd (15 pages max)
a. Protesters reactions to the indefinite temporary restraining order (1 page)
Fifteen petitions were filed against the law in 2012, hence forcing the
Supreme Court of the Philippines to issue a 120-day Temporary Restraining
Order (TRO) on the day of its implementation. On February 5, 2013, the
Supreme Court extended the TRO until further notice. Arguing that the anticybercrime legislation will curtail freedom of expression and is equivalent to
Cyber Martial Law, critics have stepped up both online and offline actions
for the junking of the law. Hackers also vandalized several government
websites as a sign of protest against the Cybercrime Law. Protesters say that
the Cybercrime Prevention Act significantly raises the penalty for libel
committed online and provides the government overwhelming and
unchecked powers to clamp down government critics and conduct online
surveillance, as in the case of a 62-year old mining activist who was arrested
for a libelous Facebook post last November 2012.
Online and Offline Protests
Various groups, including journalists, bloggers, lawyers and activists have
cited violations of privacy and the freedom of expression among others.
Members of the #NotoCyberCrimeLaw coalition held a meeting at the College
of Education, University of the Philippines in Diliman on January 10, 2013 and
vowed to hold various forms of protest, both online and offline until the high
court agrees to junk the law. Most of the conveners of the coalition are
petitioners to the case.
Anthony Ian Cruz of the Bloggers and Netizens for Democracy also declared a
Black Friday campaign in 2013 that encouraged Facebook and Twitter users to
turn their profile pictures to black. Cruz deemed that the TRO issued by the

14

SC in October was a victory of the Filipino people and called on netizens to

unite once again to exert pressure on the Supreme Court.
Youth leaders from Kabataan party list, Anakbayan and College Editors Guild
of the Philippines (CEGP) also held a protest vigil on January 14, 2013. In an
interview with bulatlat.com, National Artist for Literature Bienvenido Lumbera
said Filipinos must unite to assert our right to privacy. 10 Lumbera said the
proponents of the law must get a clear indication that Filipinos are opposed to
the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
Lumbera further called on fellow artists to fight for freedom of expression,
adding that the Internet is one of the venues through which artists and
writers get wider audience. He encouraged artists to be more creative in
portraying the peoples opposition to Cybercrime Law.
b.

The move to repeal Cyber Martial Law in the Congress (2-3 pages)
These are some of the bills11 that were are filed before the 16th Congress
asking to repeal or amend the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012:
Senate Bill No. 126, "An Act Repealing Section 4(c) (4), Chapter II of Republic
Act No. 10175 filed by Sen. Francis "Chiz" Escudero, repeals Section 4(c) (4),
Chapter II of Republic Act No. 10175 which criminalizes libel "committed
through a computer system or any other similar means which may be
devised in the future."
Senate Bill No. 11, "An Act Amending Section 6 of Republic Act 10175
Otherwise Known as an Act Defining Cybercrime, Providing For the
Prevention, Investigation and Imposition of Penalties Therefore and For Other
Purposes" filed by Sen. Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos, seeks to amend
Section 6 of RA No. 10175 and remove the imposition of higher penalty on
those charged of the crime.
It states that "Imposing a higher penalty on crimes defined under the Revised
Penal Code and specials laws committed through the internet is not in
accordance with the principle of justice and equality, and sound public policy.
If a crime is committed by, through and with the use of information and
communications technologies, then the penalties provided under the present
laws should be imposed accordingly and should not be increased solely on
the ground that the crime was perpetrated through the use of the
cyberspace."

10 IBON International (2013). The Philippine Cybercrime Law and its Impact on Human Rights, Education for Development
Magazine, vol 12, no. 2-3: 18-20, 27, March - June, Quezon City: IBON International. (available at:
http://iboninternational.org/sites/ibon/files/resources/EDM_2013_March-June.pdf)

11 Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (2013). Update: The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, September 12.
(available at http://www.cmfr-phil.org/2013/09/12/update-the-cybercrime-prevention-act-of-2012/)

15

Senate Bill No. 154, "An Act Amending Republic Act No. 10175, Otherwise
Known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, filed by Sen Pia Cayetano,
repeals Sections 4(c) (4), 6, 7, 12, and 19 of RA 10175.
It also seeks to protect freedom of speech and expression and annuls the
imposition of heavier penalty for libel committed "by, through, and with the
use of information and communication technologies."
Senale Bill No. 249, "An Act Repealing Sections 4 (c) (4), 5, 6, and 7 of RA
10175, Otherwise Known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, filed by
Sen Alan Peter Cayetano, repeals Section 4 (c) (4) saying that: (1) "The
application of RA 10175 is unconstitutionally overbroad affecting publications
previously made but still present in cyberspace." (2) "It is vague in its
application and expansive because it covers past speech before the law takes
effect." (3) "It potentially infringes on a person's freedom of speech under
Section 4 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution. It is in effect, a form of
subsequent punishment."
It also states that Section 6 of RA 10175 or the distinction on the offense
committed is "unconstitutional" and "not substantial enough."
Senate Bill Nos. 53 and 1091 and House Bill No. 1086 or the Magna Carta for
Philippine Internet Freedom are filed by Senators Miriam Defensor Santiago,
Paolo Benigno "Bam" Aquino IV, and Rep. Kimi Cojuangco, respectively,
repeals the law in its entirety.
Section 4 of the bill protects and promotes freedom of speech and expression
on the Internet and protects the right of the people to petition the
government via the Internet for redress of grievances.
Section 52 defines provisions and exceptions on Internet libel. The bill states
that expressions of protest against and dissatisfaction with the government
shall not constitute Internet libel.
It also treats libel as a civil liability, rather than a criminal act.
House Bill No. 1132, "An Act Repealing Republic Act No. 10175 or the
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 filed by Kabataan Partylist Rep. Terry
Ridon, repeals the RA 10175 and states that "Cybercrime Law seeks to
silence opposition - both in the real world and online."
c.

The Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom (3-5 pages)

A milestone in Philippine legislative history involved the crafting of a Magna
Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom or otherwise known as the Internet
Freedom (MCPIF) draft bill through crowdsourcing. This is proposed by
netizens as an alternative to the Anti-Cybercrime Law.
In July 2012, the United Nations Human Rights Council unanimously approved
a resolution that added Internet access and online freedom of expression to
16

the list of basic human rights. The resolution says that all people should be
allowed to connect to and express themselves freely on the Internet. All 47
members of the Human Rights Council, including notoriously censorshipprone countries such as China and Cuba, signed the resolution 12.
The right to Internet access, also known as the right to broadband, is the view
that all people must be able to access the Internet in order to exercise and
enjoy their rights to Freedom of expression and opinion and other
fundamental human rights, that states have a responsibility to ensure that
Internet access is broadly available, and that states may not unreasonably
restrict an individual's access to the Internet. Internet access is recognized as
a right by the laws of several countries 13.
The Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom (MCPIF), a crowdsourced
document, was filed as House Bill No. 1086 by Rep. Kimi Cojuangco and as
Senate Bill Nos. 53 and 1091 by Senators Miriam Defensor-Santiago and
Paolo Benigno "Bam" Aquino IV, respectively. If passed, the MCPIF would
repeal Republic Act No. 10175 (the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012). The
MCPIF would also guarantee a host of other freedoms; here is a guide to
some of the key elements of the bill14:
Free Expression
Section 4 of the bill pertains to freedom of expression, [protecting] and
[promoting] freedom of speech and expression on the Internet and
protecting the right of the people to petition the government via the Internet
for redress of grievances. The right of citizens to publish to the Internet
without the requirement of a license is also specifically addressed.
Section 4(c) limits State use of prior restraint or subsequent punishment in
relation to Internet-related rights only upon a judicial order conforming with
provisions laid out in Section 5, and only under certain circumstances.
Section 4(d) protects persons from being forced to remove content beyond
their means or control, specifically addressing mirrored and archived content.
Although free expression is protected, Section 52 places limits on certain
types of speech inimical to the public interest:

12 Fitzpatrick A. (2012). Internet Access Is a Human Right, Says United Nations, Mashable.com, July 6 (available at
http://mashable.com/2012/07/06/internet-human-right/)

13 Lucchi, N (2011). "Access to Network Services and Protection of Constitutional Rights: Recognizing the Essential Role of
Internet Access for the Freedom of Expression", Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law (JICL), Vol. 19, No. 3,
2011. (available at http://www.cjicl.com/uploads/2/9/5/9/2959791/cjicl_19.3_lucchi_article.pdf)

14 York, J. (2013). A Brief Analysis of the Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom, Electronic Frontier Foundation,
July 8. (available at https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/brief-analysis-magna-carta-philippine-internet-freedom)

17

Internet libel: defined as public and malicious expression tending to cause

the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to
blacken the memory of one who is dead, made on the Internet or on public
networks;
Hate speech: defined as public and malicious expression calling for the
commission of illegal acts on an entire class of persons, a reasonably broad
section thereof, or a person belonging to such a class, based on gender,
sexual orientation, religious belief or affiliation, political belief or affiliation,
ethnic or regional affiliation, citizenship, or nationality, made on the Internet
or on public networks and;
Child pornography
Atypically, the definition of Internet hate speech is incredibly limited, with the
Act stating that it shall not lie if the expression does not call for the
commission of illegal acts on the person or class of persons that, when they
are done, shall cause actual criminal harm to the person or class of persons,
under existing law and if it does not call for the commission of illegal acts
posing an immediate lawless danger to the public or to the person who is the
object of the expression.
Universal access
While Section 5 explicitly promotes universal access to the Internet, Section
5(b) allows for the suspension of an individuals Internet access as an
accessory to other penalties upon conviction of certain crimes, with certain
checks and balances.
Remarkably, Section 5(e) prevents persons or entities offering Internet access
for free or for a fee (including hotels, schools, and religious groups) from
restricting access to the Internet or limiting content that may be accessed by
guests, employees or others without a reasonable ground related to the
protection of the person or entity from actual or legal threats, the privacy of
others who may be accessing the network, or the privacy and security of the
network as provided for in the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173) or this
Act.
Innovation
Section 7 addresses the right to innovation, allowing for State protection and
promotion of innovation, and prohibiting persons from restricting or denying
the right to develop new information and communications technologies,
without due process of law...
With certain exceptions provided for in the Intellectual Property Code, Section
7(b) states that no person shall be denied access to new information and
communications technologies, nor shall any new information and
communications technologies be blocked, censored, suppressed, or otherwise

18

restricted, without due process of law or authority vested by law. Innovators

are also protected from liability for the actions of users.
Right to Privacy
Section 8 provides for State promotion of the protection of the privacy of
data, with Section 8(b) providing the right of users to employ encryption or
cryptography protect the privacy of the data or networks which such person
owns or otherwise possesses real rights over.
Section 8(d) guarantees a persons right of privacy over his or her data or
network rights, while 8(e) requires the State to maintain appropriate level of
privacy of the data and of the networks maintained by it.
Section 9 refers to the protection of the security of data and 9(b) guarantees
the right of persons to employ means whether physical, electronic or
behavioral to protect the security of his or her data or networks.
Sections 9(c) and (d) refer to the rights of third parties over private data,
requiring a court order issued in accordance with Section 5 of the Act to grant
access, and preventing third parties from being given property rights to the
data accessed.
Intellectual property
Section 10 protects intellectual property online in accordance with the
existing Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (RA 8293). 10(c)
prevents Internet service providers and telecommunications entities from
gaining intellectual property rights over derivative content that is the result of
creation, invention, innovation, or modification by a person using the service
provided by the Internet service provider, telecommunications entity, or such
person providing Internet or data services.
Section 39 addresses fair use, declaring that the viewing, use, editing,
decompiling, or modification, of downloaded or otherwise offline content on
any computer, device, or equipment shall be considered fair use with certain
provisions.
Section 48 deals with intellectual property infringement, with 48(a)(ii) notably
defining the non-attribution or plagiarism of copyleft content as defined in
section 38 as infringement.
Other Areas
In addition to the sections detailed above, the Act covers a range of other
issue areas, including hacking, cyber crime, and human trafficking. The Act
also creates an Office of Cybercrime within the Department of Justice to be
designated as the central authority in enforcement of the Act. Notably,
special courts in which judges are required to have specific expertise in

19

computer science or IT are also designated to hear and resolve all cases
brought under the Act.
Overall, the crowdsourced Act is a success story and we support our allies in
the Phillippines as they work to push it forward in the Senate.
d. Sustaining the fight against Cybercrime; keeping the conversation going to
promote Internet Freedom (2-3 pages)
In this age of the internet, the rights and freedoms that peoples struggles
have long won are again facing imminent threats of repression and denial.
Government policies and actions of indiscriminate and arbitrary collection of
personal data interfere with and violate the freedoms of expression and of
association, and of access to and exchange of information and ideas, freedom
and rights that are enshrined in international human rights laws and
standards, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), and that are essential to the preservation and perpetuation of
democracy. Mass surveillance does not have a place in a free and democratic
society.
Filipinos should join peoples from all over the globe in calling upon all
governments to uphold the right of all individuals to use information and
communications technologies such as the Internet without fear of
unwarranted interference.
To this end, we Filipinos should commit to the continuing struggle for the
advancement of fundamental human rights, and support the calls of the
movement for internet freedom in the Philippines for:
- Repeal of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012;
- Public Participation in crafting policies that seek to govern or regulate the
internet, in order to safeguard internet freedom; and,
- Recognition and respect of the private sector of human rights.
4. SC ruling partial unconstitutionality of the Cybercrime Law (8 pages max)
a. SC decision explained (3-5 pages)
On 18 February 2014, the Supreme Court (SC) of the Philippines upheld the
constitutionality of almost all provisions of the Cybercrime law, including the
provision that penalizes online libel. The high court clarified that original
authors of potentially libelous posts can be sued, not those who received,
reposted, or who reacted to it.
SC also declared constitutional the criminalization of the aiding and abetting
of the commission of cybercrime. Provisions which were struck down as
unconstitutional were the provision that empowers DOJ to restrict or block
access to websites and online profiles that are deemed violating the law;
provisions on unsolicited commercial communications and real-time collection
of traffic data; and the liability of a cyber criminal under other laws but only
in the cases of online libel and child pornography, citing a person's guarantee
20

against double jeopardy. Libel is punishable by Article 353 of the Revised

Penal Code, while child pornography is punishable by Republic Act 9775 or
the Anti-Child Pornography Act.
According to Supreme Court Chief Public Information Officer Theodore Te, the
Court declared unconstitutional the RA 10175 provisions on unsolicited
commercial communications (Section 4c3), real-time collection of traffic data
(Section 12), and blocking access to computer sites found in violation of the
Act (Section 19). It also declared the section on aiding and abetting, and
attempting to commit cybercrimes (Section 5), and the section on liability
under other laws (Section 7) unconstitutional with respect to certain crimes
defined in Section 4 of the law, notably with respect to libel and child
pornography because other laws already penalize these crimes.
The Court upheld the constitutionality of the provision on libel (Section4c4)
when applied to the original author of the material in question. Although the
Court made it clear that the provision would not apply to anyone who
comments on material that may later be deemed libelous, the original author
would still be liable to imprisonment of as much as, say some lawyers, to
twelve years.
b. Reactions (1-3 pages)
The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 adopts the Revised Penal Code (RPC)
provisions on libel, but raises the penalties by one degree, from a minimum of
six months' imprisonment in the RPC per count of libel to a minimum of six
years. The Court decision not only legitimizes the higher penalties for online
libel; by implication it also declares the original libel law constitutional 15.
The libel provisions of the RPC have been problematic for free expression and
press freedom since 1932, when the RPC was implemented, primarily
because of the penalty of imprisonment, which has been used in many
instances to silence journalists. The libel law has also been declared
excessive by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which in 2011
asked the Philippine government to review the law towards eliminating the
penalty of imprisonment16. In 2012, in what looked like a government
response to the demand for the decriminalization of libel, the Cybercrime
Prevention Act instead made the libel provisions of the RPC part of the
sanctions against online libel and in addition raised the penalties.
The Supreme Court decision is in short a partial victory for free expression.
Libel as provided for in the RPC thus remains today as problematic as it has
been for over 80 years to press freedom and free expression, and in addition
15 Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (2014). Supreme Court declares Cybercrime Law unconstitutional, February
20. (available at https://www.ifex.org/philippines/2014/02/20/libel_clause/)

16 Pinlac, N.Y. (2012).,Decriminalizing libel: UN declares PH libel law excessive , Center for Media Freedom and
Responsibility, February 17. )available at http://www.cmfr-phil.org/2012/02/17/decriminalizing-libel-un-declares-ph-libel-lawexcessive/)

21

has become an even bigger constraint on free expression when committed

online.
5. Where is the Cybercrime Law now?
a.

Status
Republic Act 10175 was signed into law last September 12, 2012. This law is
already in effect as the Supreme Court uphold its constitutionality on
February 18, 2014.
The February 18, 2014 ruling of the Supreme Court declaring key provisions
of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175) unconstitutional is a
victory for free expression. But its declaring the provision on libel committed
through the Internet constitutional retains one of the most problematic
provisions of the Act.

22