The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009

A Primer

The highly publicized sex videos of celebrity physician Hayden Kho with various celebrity partners rocked
Philippine society in May 2009 and was quickly shared online and later distributed through DVD in the
streets and sidewalks. In response to this, Congress passed Republic Act 9995 (Anti-Photo and Video
Voyeurism Act of 2009) to prevent the publication and distribution of similar material in the future.[1]
The law prohibits recording videos or taking photos of a sexual act, the male or female genitalia, and of
the female breast, among others, without consent of the persons featured in the material. The law
ultimately seeks to prevent the reproduction, distribution, and publication of said material regardless of
whether or not the persons featured consented to the recording.

Prohibited Acts

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act prohibits the following acts:

The unconsented taking of a photo or video of a person or group of persons engaged in a sexual act or
any similar activity, or capturing an image of the private area of a person, under circumstances in which
the said person has a reasonable expectation of privacy;

The copying or reproduction of such photo or video recording of the sexual act;

The selling or distribution of such photo or video recording;

The publication or broadcasting, whether in print or broadcast media, or the showing of such sexual act
or any similar activity through VCD/DVD, the internet, cellular phones, and other similar means or
devices without the written consent of the persons featured.[2]

Prohibitions numbered 2, 3, and 4 will still apply even if the person or persons featured in the photo or
video consented to the taking of the photo or recording of the sexual act.

Penalties

The penalties for any person found guilty of violating any of the prohibitions enumerated under Section
4 of R.A. 9995 range from an imprisonment of 3 to 7 years and a fine of P100,000.00 up to P500,000.00
at the discretion of the court. Additional penalties are meted for the following violators: juridical
persons, public officers or employees, and aliens.[3]

Juridical Persons such as Corporations and Partnerships who violate this law will have their licenses or
franchises automatically revoked and their officers held liable, including the editor and reporter in the
case of print media, and the station manager, editor, and broadcaster in the case of broadcast media.
Public officers or employees who violate this law shall also be held administratively liable, whereas aliens
who violate the law shall be subject to deportation proceedings after they serve their sentence and pay
the fines imposed.[4]

Important Questions

What does the “private area of a person” include?

The “private area of a person” includes naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or the
female breast.[5]

What does it mean to have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

R.A. 9995 contemplates two situations where a person can have a reasonable expectation of
privacy:

When the person believes that one could undress in privacy without being concerned that an image of
him or her is being taken; and,

When a reasonable person would believe that one’s private area would not be visible regardless of
whether the person is in a public or private place.[6]

Will one be liable for the non-commercial copying or reproduction of said photo or video?

Yes. The mere copying or reproduction of said material will make one liable under the law regardless of
the reason or whether one profits or not from such act.[7] Indeed, the mere showing of the material on
one’s cellphone would violate the law. [8]

The persons in the photo knew and consented to the video recording or taking of the photo; can I
reproduce, distribute, or broadcast it?

If the person or persons in the photo or video gave written consent for the reproduction, distribution, or
broadcasting of said material, then one will not be held liable under the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism
Act. However, if the person merely consented to the taking of the photo or the video recording and did
not give written consent for its reproduction, distribution, and broadcasting, then anyone committing
the said acts shall be held liable under R.A. 9995.[9]

https://elegal.ph/the-anti-photo-and-video-voyeurism-act-of-2009-a-primer/
 The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 was passed as a solution to prevent the
proliferation of scandals the most notable of which is the one which involved Dr. Hayden Kho,
Maricar Reyes as well as actress Katrina Halili. The law itself provides that its main objective is
to penalize acts that will destroy the honor, integrity and dignity of a person.

If you find yourself being a victim of perverts who took a photo or video of your private part or
your intercourse, make sure to read the provision of this law because this will be your main
weapon against these scums of the society. The provisions of the Anti-Photo and Video
Voyeurism Act of 2009 are simplified below so that it may be easily understood, thus:

What acts are prohibited under the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of
2009?

1. To:

 take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any
similar activity or

 an image of the private area of a person/s such as the naked or the undergarment clad
genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breasts

when

 without the consent of person/s involved and

 under circumstances in which the person/s has/have reasonable expectation of privacy

2. To:

 copy or reproduce, or

 cause to be copied or reproduced,

such photo or video or recording of sexual act, whether it be:

 the original copy or

 reproduction thereof

3. To:

 sell or distribute, or
 cause to be copied or reproduced,

such photo or video or recording of sexual act, whether it be:

 the original copy or

 reproduction thereof

4. To:

 publish or broadcast, or

 cause to be published or broadcast

whether in:

– print, or

– broadcast media

 show or exhibit

the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or any similar activity

through:

– VCD/DVD

– Internet

– Cellular phones

– Other similar means and devices

Will a person be held liable in case the victim gave his/her consent to record
or take photo or video coverage?

The prohibitions shall apply notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video
coverage was given.
 What are the penalties for violation of the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism
Act of 2009?

At the discretion of the Court, it may impose upon any person found violating the said law the
following penalties:

If the offender is a natural person

 imprisonment of not less than three (3) years but not more than seven (7) years, and

 a fine of not less than Php100,000.00 but not more than Php500,000.00, or

 both imprisonment and fine

If the offender is a juridical person:

 it’s license or franchise shall be automatically deemed revoked, and

 the persons liable shall be the officers, including:

If the offender is a public officer or employee or a professional:

 he/shall shall be administratively liable

If the offender is an alien:

 he/she shall be subject to deportation proceedings after serving his/her sentence and
payment of fines

What are the exemptions to this law?

A peace officer who is authorized by written order of the court, to use the record or any copy
thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of the crime of photo or video
voyeurism

Provided the following conditions are met;

 the written order shall only be granted upon written application and the examination under
oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he/she may produce, and

 upon showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that photo or video voyeurism
has been committed or is about to be committed, and
 the evidence to be obtained is essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the
solution or prevention of such crime

https://www.jamesbiron.com/2010/07/anti-photo-and-video-voyeurism-act-of-2009-ra-9995/

Oo na. Nag-aalboroto na ang mga boys kasi feeling nila iniisa ko sila sa mga posts ko. O eto,
pramis di lang ito pambabae. All around ito kasi kahit lalaki pwedeng maging biktima rin dito.

BABALA: May mga maseselan na bahagi dito depende sa level ng imagination at pag-unawa mo.
Pero susubukan natin i-divert into light discussion para di masagwa.
Ano nga ba ang photo and video voyeurism?

Simple lang: BOSO. Oo, yung tipikal boso na nasa utak mo pero hi-tech at expanded version na. In
other words, eto na ngayon ang “modern boso”. Eto yung pagkuha thru photo or video sa isang tao
o grupo ng mga tao habang nagpeperform sila ng sexual act o di kaya ay similar activity. Pasok din
dito yung act na pagkuha ng image ng private area ng isang tao o grupo ng mga tao nang walang
pahintulot nila. Under this circumstance, dapat yung tao o grupo ng mga taong kinuhanan ng
private area, are expecting privacy on their part. At dahil hi-tech at expanded version ito ng boso,
pasok din dito yung act of selling, copying, reproducing, broadcasting, sharing, showing or
exhibiting the photo or video coverage or records of such sexual act or similar activity
through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and similar means or device.
Para madali natin pare-parehong maintindihan, we will break down the prohibited acts under this
law into four (4). Eto ngayon sila:

1. pagkuha ng litrato or video

2. pag kopya or reproduce ng mga nabanggit na litrato or video

3. pagbento o pamamahagi ng mga ito

4. pagpublish o broadcast ng mga ito

Ayos ba? Bawat isa sa kanila ay separated acts. So kung papakyawin mo ang apat na prohibited
acts na iyan, alam na, e di apat ang na-commit mo. O isa-isahin natin ha.

 (a) pagkuha ng litrato o video coverage sa isang tao o grupo ng mga tao
habang nagpeperform siya/sila ng sexual act o mga kagayang activity; o di
kaya naman ay pag capture ng image ng pribado niya or nilang katawan
nang wala niya/nilang pahintulot.
Dito sa (a), the person/s involved expect privacy. Halimbawa, nakakita ka ng lalaking nagsasariling
sikap sa kwarto niya. Natuwa ka. So ang ginawa mo kinuha mo ang celphone mo at vinideo mo.
Apparently, that guy is expecting privacy while doing his act. He is not even aware that you are
there peeping at his private deed. Pero dahil kampon ka ng kuliti gang, di mo pa rin pinalagpas at
binosohan mo pa rin by videoing the private act.

Halimbawa uli, isang grupo na nagperform ng orgy. First time mong nakakita at natuwa ka. So ang
ginawa mo, vinideo mo. Katwiran mo, “eh ang dami nga nila e, wala naman sigurong
masama. Okay lang siguro sa kanila.” Hoy, kahit ilan pa yan, private sexual act yan in which
they demand privacy. Kahit kumpulan pa iyan. Yari ka, sige.
Alam mo ba na pasok din dito yung pagkuha mo ng photo ng private area ng isang tao? Yup, kahit
nakatutok lang dun halimbawa sa deadly weapon niya at wala yung mukha pero sa deadly weapon
niya naka tattoo ang complete name and contact number niya, yari ka pa rin. Pasok din dito yung
pagkuha ng boobs ng babae. Pag boobs ang pinag-uusapan, babae lang ang victim dito. Di na daw
kasali ang boys.

Sa apat na prohibited acts under the law on voyeurism, dito lang sa (a) nagiging punishable ang
pagkuha ng larawan sa mga private parts ng isang tao o grupo ng mga tao.

Eh paano kung halimbawa ang piniktyuran naman na maselang bahagi ng lalaki o babae ay may
brief or panty namang suot? Yup, pasok pa rin yan under (a). Kasi nga sabi dito, “to capture an
image of the private area of a person/s such as the naked or undergarment clad
genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast.
O ayan, katatapos lang ng summer vacation. Maraming naggagandahang katawan ang binandera
ang sarili suot lang ang two-piece bikini o di kaya ay trunks. Paano kung piktyuran mo sila dahil
nagagandahan ka? You consider it as art, as a mere appreciation of beauty. Pero umalma yung
isa. Kakasuhan ka daw under this act.

Oo nga naman. Punishable na din kasi ang mere act of taking photos of the undergarment clad
genitals. Ang katwiran mo, wala kang masamang motibo. But take note, this is a special penal law
at hindi depensa ang “lack of criminal intent” kasi presumed na yan sa mga special laws. So paano
yan? Ang hirap kasi baby pa lang ang batas na ito. Wala pang nasasampolan ng Korte Suprema.
Although may mga nang-ahas ng magkasuhan under this law, still, di pa sila humahantong naman
sa Supreme Court para gawing jurisprudence. Pero eto ha, balikan mo ang original na wordings
under (a):

“ To take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act
or any similar activity or to capture an image of the private area of a person/s such as
the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast without
the consent of the person/s involved and under circumstances in which the person/s
has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

Napansin mo ang sinabi sa huli? Reasonable expectation of privacy daw. If you are in a public
beach or public pool, do you actually intend to have privacy of basking yourself under the sun
wearing only that piece of garment?

I’m leaving that question for you to ponder.

 (b) Pag kopya o reproduce nang mga nasabing photo or video or

pagrerecord ng sexual act at mga kagayang activity.
Let’s say trabaho mo talaga ang kumuha ng mga photos or videos. Merong pagkakataon na
tumatanggap ka ng mga explicit projects. Sideline, kumbaga. Kasi balita ko malaki daw kita dyan
e. Syempre, you expect payment for a job well done. Dito sa (b) kahit pa may kapalit o wala ang
ginawa mong pangongopya or pagrereproduce nang mga nasabing photo or video, pasok ka pa rin
sa prohibited acts under RA No. 9995 (Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009).

Please take note na immaterial kung may consent ang victim dito o wala. Sa (a) lang material ang
consent at hindi dito sa (b). That means, kahit pa pumayag ang biktima na kunan mo siya or kahit
alam niya na kinukunan mo siya, pasok ka pa rin dito.

 (c) pagbebenta o pamamahagi nang mga nasabing photo or video o

pagrerekord nang mga nasabing sexual act kahit pa original pa ito o
reproduction na lang.

Wala akong example. Naubusan ako ng creative juice. Basta ganun din gaya ng sa (b). Kahit may
consent or wala ang victim, pasok ka pa rin sa (c). Sa (a) lang material ang consent.

 (d) to publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or broadcast, whether

in print or broadcast media, or show or exhibit the photo or video coverage
or recordings of such sexual act or any similar activity through VCD/DVD,
internet, cellular phones and other similar means or device.

Kaya kung ako sa’yo tigil-tigilan mo na yang pagshe-share ng mga scandal na napapanood mo sa
facebook, youtube, etc. Yun lang naman yon e. Kung malinaw sayo ang sinabi ko, gets mo ang ibig
sabihin ng letter (d).

TAKE NOTE: Ang mga prohibited acts under (b), (c), and (d) ay punishable under RA 9995 kahit pa
nagbigay pahintulot ang tao/grupo ng mga taong kinukuhanan mo ng litrato or video. Nagiging
material lang ang consent pagdating sa (a).
Alam mo ba na hindi lang tao ang pwedeng maging liable under this law? Kahit pa corporate
entities na ginagawang pagkakakitaan ang mga ganitong klaseng materials ay pwedeng kasuhan
dito. Bilang parusa, pwedeng marevoke ang kanilang lisensya or franchise. Maaari ring kasuhan
criminally ang mga corporate officers pati na rin ang editor and reporter (for print media as
example), station manager, editor, and broadcaster (for broadcast media). Kung alien ang offender
natin, he or she might be subjected to deportation proceedings after niyang ma-serve ang kanyang
sentensya at makapagbayad ng fine.

Para sa mga indibidwal, ang parusa lang naman ay pagkakulong ng hindi bababa sa tatlong (3) taon
at hindi rin naman hihigit sa pitong (7) taon. Ooops…! Bukod doon pwede ka ring pagbayarin ng
fine na hindi bababa lang naman sa isang daang libong piso (Php100,000.00) at hindi hihigit sa
limang daang libong piso (Php500,000.00).

Kung ang offender naman natin ay public officer or employee or a professional, pwede rin silang
kasuhan ng administratibo.

By the way, gusto ko lang ipaalam sa iyo na may provision tayo sa Revised Penal Code natin na
related dito sa Anti Voyeurism. Ito ang Article 201. Kanina sabi ko ang “motive” ay immaterial sa
Anti Voyeurism kasi nga special penal law ito. Material ang motive lang sa mga crimes under
Revised Penal Code. Isa yan sa pagkakaiba ng penal law sa mere special penal law. Eto ang Article
201:

Article 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions, and indecent
shows. –—The penalty of prision correccional or a fine ranging from six thousand to
twelve thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine, shall be imposed upon:

(1) those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary
to public morals;

(2) [a] the authors of obscene literature, published with their knowledge
in any form; the editors publishing such literature; and the owners/operators of the
establishment selling the same;

[b] those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any other

place, exhibit, indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, whether live
or in film, which are prescribed by virtue hereof, shall include those which: (1) glorify
criminals or condone crimes; (2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market
for violence, lust or pornography; (3) offend any race or religion; (4) tend to abet
traffic in and use of prohibited drugs; and (5) are contrary to law, public order,
morals, good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts;
(3) those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints,
engravings, sculpture or literature which are offensive to morals.
See? Related ano. Kitams. Nag-eevolve ang batas natin kumporme sa modern times. Mantakin
mong 1930s pang batas iyang indecent shows na iyan compared to the 2009 Anti Voyeurism law.

SOURCE:
 R.A. No. 9995

 Article 201, Revised Penal Code

https://thelovelybiatch.wordpress.com/tag/r-a-no-9995/

MANILA, Philippines —The Facebook controversy between a 26-year-old student

and a school dean is being eyed as a test case to see how the newly enacted
“cyberboso” law or the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 can enforce its
teeth on voyeurs.
Buhay partylist Representative Irwin Tieng, the main author of Republic Act 9995,
said his group is now helping the student, known only as “Annika,” in her legal case
against Alexander Rible, a dean in a Metro Manila school, who posted in the social
networking site Facebook photos of her in the nude and other compromising poses.

“This is a test case and we hope we can be successful in prosecuting the erring person
using the law,” Tieng said at the Serye news forum in Quezon City.
Tieng came to the venue of the news forum with the victim and her lawyer, Freidrick
Lu, but the victim was did not face the media.
Lu said the relationship between Annika and Rible existed for not less than six months
while the former was still enrolled in the school. He said Rible “became vindictive”
when Annika broke off from the relationship.

To retaliate, Rible created a Facebook account using the name of Annika’s common-
law husband and posted her photos there for public viewing. The account has been
taken down, but screen grabs were taken that still preserved the photographs.
“You can really see the character of the person who created the account. He even
invited the victim’s friends in the account so they can access to her photos,” Lu said.

Rible is now facing charges for violating Section 4-a of RA 9995, which prohibits
taking photos or video of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any
similar act and copying, reproducing, publishing and distributing them.
Lu said they have also filed rape charges against Rible and violation of Anti-Sexual
Harassment Act (RA 7877) and Anti-Violation of Women and Children Act (RA
9262).
Rible was freed after posting a P7,000 bail bond.
RA 9995 was enacted into law last year to put a stop to voyeurism using the internet.
A number of scandals have been publicized in the past, including the sex video
between sexy actress Kathrina Halili and Dr. Hayden Kho.


SAYS SOLON

Student’s Facebook
scandal a test case
for voyeurism law
By: Lira Dalangin-Fernandez - @inquirerdotnet
INQUIRER.net / 04:37 PM March 03, 2011

MANILA, Philippines —The Facebook controversy between a 26-year-old

student and a school dean is being eyed as a test case to see how the
newly enacted “cyberboso” law or the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism
Act of 2009 can enforce its teeth on voyeurs.
Buhay partylist Representative Irwin Tieng, the main author of Republic
Act 9995, said his group is now helping the student, known only as
“Annika,” in her legal case against Alexander Rible, a dean in a Metro
Manila school, who posted in the social networking site Facebook photos
of her in the nude and other compromising poses.
ADVERTISEMENT

“This is a test case and we hope we can be successful in prosecuting the

erring person using the law,” Tieng said at the Serye news forum in
Quezon City.

Tieng came to the venue of the news forum with the victim and her
lawyer, Freidrick Lu, but the victim was did not face the media.

Lu said the relationship between Annika and Rible existed for not less
than six months while the former was still enrolled in the school. He said
Rible “became vindictive” when Annika broke off from the relationship.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––
To retaliate, Rible created a Facebook account using the name of Annika’s
common-law husband and posted her photos there for public viewing.
The account has been taken down, but screen grabs were taken that still
preserved the photographs.

“You can really see the character of the person who created the account.
He even invited the victim’s friends in the account so they can access to
her photos,” Lu said.

MORE STORIES
Man convicted in killing after being ID’d through Snapchat

US YouTube star gets 10 years in prison for child porn

German police lead break up of Darknet trafficking platform

Rible is now facing charges for violating Section 4-a of RA 9995, which
prohibits taking photos or video of a person or group of persons
performing sexual act or any similar act and copying, reproducing,
publishing and distributing them.

Lu said they have also filed rape charges against Rible and violation of
Anti-Sexual Harassment Act (RA 7877) and Anti-Violation of Women and
Children Act (RA 9262).

Rible was freed after posting a P7,000 bail bond.

RA 9995 was enacted into law last year to put a stop to voyeurism using
the internet. A number of scandals have been publicized in the past,
including the sex video between sexy actress Kathrina Halili and Dr.
Hayden Kho.

A penalty of not less than three years of imprisonment and fine of not less
than P100,000 will be meted to those found guilty of violating the law.

Read more: https://technology.inquirer.net/38/student%e2%80%99s-facebook-

scandal-a-test-case-for-voyeurism-law#ixzz5rgS2BOIU
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook