Philippine Cybercrime law
-1
MK13
Netorare Hunter
October 3, 2012 is the darkest moments of the filipino people in cyberspace. Cybercrime law takes away our "Freedom of speech" and worst of all, we can no longer download or watch anime online. Our government obviously doing this for their own benefits, specially Senator Tito Sotto and our Mentally retarded monkey President Noynoy Aquino who bares a grudge against their cyber critics! As for my family who has a huge connection on Philippine "Underground", we wanted to support a group of filipino hackers who attacks a lot of government sites. Many hackers from other countries are helping us to stop this blasphemy.
0
I'm not from there, but I know what I would feel if the same happened here.
Be careful, okay ?
But go for it.
Be careful, okay ?
But go for it.
0
animefreak_usa
Child of Samael
You mean downloading and watching illegal imported and non licensing japanese own anime. Also lrn2vpn/tunneling. I doubt 'hackers' really care about this. Lulz more then feelings.
0
Laws like these don't end up having much teeth unless you're Megaupload I find. If you're an average dude/dudette who just so happens to be surfing the web, the goberments simply aren't gonna be interested in you :D. They have too little time, and too many important things to deal with. But groups such as Anonymous, hackers, etc, will actually bring negative attention to our little communities.
So, just let the government blow their smoke. They can't curtail all of us :D
So, just let the government blow their smoke. They can't curtail all of us :D
0
Talk about hypocrisy. His deceased father was deemed a hero for openly criticizing the government. Now he is taking away freedom of speech on the internet because people are criticizing him.
1
Jonoe wrote...
Talk about hypocrisy. His deceased father was deemed a hero for openly criticizing the government. Now he is taking away freedom of speech on the internet because people are criticizing him."they won't think bad about me if it's a crime to, then that means everyone will like me"
Spoiler:
0
This'll end well. They should have the common sense to know that trying to censor something that large will always backfire.
0
Hmm...how did the 18th amendment end up here in the U.S. again?
They say a smart man learns from his mistakes, but a wise man learns from others mistakes.
They say a smart man learns from his mistakes, but a wise man learns from others mistakes.
1
Sigh~ I am tired of seeing people blabbering the so called "cyber martial law" or "impending the freedom of speech" without even mentioning their own factual and logical explanation behind it. It is saddening to see that Filipinos are naive to what other people are saying without even researching about the issue or even reading and understanding the whole document beforehand.
Passing a bill - Responsibility of both the government and its constituents
Abraham Lincoln once stated that the government is made of the people, by the people, and for the people. We are responsible for the ones we have elected, and it doesn't stop there. We should also keep an eye on their every activities, as they represent our will and aspirations. As provided in Article III, Sec. 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, "No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances." We enjoy the right to safeguard our basic rights and scrutinize the acts and conducts of public officials. This is very important on the moral and intellectual growth of the society and the whole nation, since freedom of expression is in the very nature of man to search for truth and perfection.
First and foremost, this should have not happened if all interest groups, through their corresponding representatives, have joined the public hearings conducted in the Congress. [See: Art. VI, Sec. 21 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution] Our attention is mostly focused on other things such as the Sin Tax Bill and RH Bill, and I personally admit it myself that I was not aware of the current situation of this law when it was still under the process of being discussed by our legislators. We are also partly responsible for what just happened, but I'm not sugar-coating the legislators' grave mistake such as when they overlooked the bicameral conference committee report which includes the online libel proposed by Senator Tito Sotto, he even had the guts to do that despite his infamous plagiarism and various criticisms against him.
Passage of RA No. 10175 - Where did it go wrong?
Article VI, Sec. 26, par. 1 and 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states the required processes on the making and passing of a bill. "No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency." I am sure there is no urgency on the matter to pass this law. So where exactly did it go wrong on the passing of Republic Act No. 10175?
The legislative history of Republic Act 10175 shows that the House and Senate approved the bicameral conference committee report on June 5, 2012, the same day it was submitted to both chambers for ratification. Just for people's information, the bicameral conference committee compromises the difference between the Senate and the House in the passage of a bill into law. The report or recommendation will have to be approved by both Houses in order that it will be considered passed by Congress and thereafter sent to the President for approval. One of the disadvantages of having a conference committee of both Houses is that it has the power to make any provisions as long as it still encompasses the subject matter, since there are no rules which limit them to a consideration of conflicting provisions. It is within its power to include in its report an entirely new provision that is not found either in the Senate or House Bill. It became bad to the eyes of the public because of Senator Sotto's proposal on the floor of online libel without even any objections from his colleagues. [See: Chapter II, Sec. 4(c)(4) - under content-related offenses]
After the deliberations, they should have given all of the legislators a copy of it for it to be thoroughly reviewed and given the corresponding final amendments before putting it into voting, but unfortunately, it didn't happen. The Senators admitted that the online libel was inserted without their knowledge or being unaware of it. Though, under the rules of parliamentary procedures, the Senators could make a motion to recess on the floor, in order for them to thoroughly review the bill. However, they just went ahead and approved the bill in its current form as given by the bicameral conference committee. All of the Senators should have been in full attendance on the day of final amendment and voting, but only a few of them were present. Miriam Defensor Santiago was not able to attend on the day of voting, and she personally admitted it herself the vagueness and loopholes of the passed law. The most atrocious part of it is that the president didn't bother to fully review the bill before signing it, considering this law is a very sensitive issue to us Filipino netizens.
Hacking is a crime
Now, about that hacktivist group, Anonymous. That shit is gay. They can only fight behind the government's back unlike the other protesters. Now, I am sure some of you will tell me that it is their right of freedom of expression as provided in Article III of our Constitution — The Bill of Rights. Let me tell you this, then. Freedom of Speech is not absolute. It is subject to the regulation of the State and subject one person to liability when abused. We have our rights, but these rights are not honored when it violate the rights of other people, especially a larger community or the society as a whole.
Hacking government websites can be considered as a serious crime as it disrupts the work of public office, and puts public documents and other classified information at risk due to unauthorized access of these files. Moreover, there was a news report that these hackers make use of our personal accounts and information for their hacking attacks which puts us innocent internet users at risk of being sued by the authorities. I would rather choose the government to track and record our activities rather than letting an anonymous group to take control of my accounts without any liabilities. By this reason, it is considered as a violation of our supreme law of the land and other statutes.
The good thing about their simultaneous hacking movement is that it shows the vulnerability of the hacked websites, thus, they (the webmasters) will make corresponding remedies to further enhance their security. They only have the guts to do it because they know that the government don't have the means to protect I.T. documents, but I can perceive that the government would gradually enhance their cyber law enforcement capability, since the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 had been passed. [See: Chapter IV, Sec. 24 - Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center] and [Chapter III, Sec. IV - Law Enforcement Authorities]
Vague and Overpowered Provisions
What makes a law very dangerous is the ambiguity of its provisions, as it could be used for ill-intent without us being aware of it, and this truly violates our rights and aspiration embodied in our Constitution.
a.) Chapter II, Sec. 4(c)(4) "Libel" - Even without being specifically stated in the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, online libel is still punishable under "Crimes against Honor" of the Revised Penal Code. Section 1, Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code defined libel as "public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead." [See also the other articles under "Crimes Against Honor" under the Revised Penal Code]
The enforcement of this law was only extended to the cyberspace. Despite all these, under Article 361 of the Revised Penal Code, it is stated that in every criminal prosecution of libel, if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants shall be acquitted. In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted. Moreover, Article III, Sec. 4 of our present Constitution safeguards our right of freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. This means that we can scrutinize the acts and conducts of public officials when we see them commit a violation of our laws or even just public office misconduct, given that it is factual and true.
Some people see this provision as a double jeopardy and violates again one of the provisions of the Constitution under Article III, Sec. 21 - "No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act." Our right against double jeopardy forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same or similar charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction, or in any other manner without the express consent of the accused. However, there are two classes of double jeopardy as defined by the Constitution. We are protected against double jeopardy for the same offense, meaning it is exactly or identically the same as the previous offense that had already been given a verdict by the court. The other one is double jeopardy of punishment for the same act, meaning if the act (e.g., stealing, killing) is punishable by a law and an ordinance, which can be prosecuted as a different case.
Double jeopardy is only applied to the same crime, committed in the same place, for the same purpose, and with the same result. Here is an example to better explain this term. You were sued of libel by a certain person, at a certain date, time, and place, and then tried, and given a verdict by the court, let us say for instance, acquittal. You can't be sued again for the same offense you have done, since you were already given a judgement by the court, otherwise it will violate our right to be protected of the abuse of the justice system. However, if you committed another libel case to a different person, at a different place, time, and date, then it is an entirely different matter on which you can be prosecuted.
This online libel provision is already ambiguous in its form, whether it inflicts higher penalty or anyone can file libel, given its difference in nature with the other forms of libel such as oral defamation and in writing. Due to this unending conflict that is subject to abuse by other people, especially the ones in authority or the influential, other legislators forward decriminalization of libel in order to solve the present problem.
I personally find it absurd that the authorities will sue you for liking a wall post of a suspected criminal, and I don't see the logical reason behind people's exaggeration of that act. If that is the case, our government, including us, will become a laughing-stock by other countries due to the absurdity of this certain provision. I think our present administration doesn't have any plans to commit that suicide act, at least for now.
b.) Online crimes having higher penalties compared to offline offenses - Both online and offline cases should be given equal weights as it will be perceived as discrimination to online communities. This maybe due to the nature of the medium used that anyone could be victimized, the expensiveness of computer systems and network devices, and the violation is publicized, considering the wide extent of the cyberspace. The imposition of higher penalties serve as a discouragement to people to do such an act to prevent it from its occurrence, considering the "online" nature of the cyberspace that can possibly inflict a wide extent of damage to an individual/s.
An example of this is online child pornography. This provision imposes a penalty one degree higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775, if committed through a computer system. The dignity and sanctity of the child is severely damaged due to the possible wide extent of distribution of files and exposition of the person's naked body. [See: Chapter II, Sec. 4(c)(2) and Chapter III, Sec. 8 - Penalties]
c.) Chapter IV, Section 19 "Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data" - "When a computer data is prima facie (meaning on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts, unless rebutted or appealed) found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer data."
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is under the Cabinet of the President, therefore, is part of the Executive Branch of the government. It can be used as a means for their own propaganda and interest that favors their objectives. Under Article III, Sec. 4, par 1 and 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, it states that "The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law."
This is perceived as like a Martial Law due to the vast powers vested on the DOJ. We want our judiciary to be the one to issue this order, however, we cannot deny the fact that our judicial process is slow. Thus, while the judge is contemplating his decision, the "objectionable" materials may already be causing damage that could easily been averted otherwise. So, given the circumstances, this might been the reason of the legislators to provide the authority to the Department of Justice instead of the judicial courts. Though, only the restriction and blocking of computer data are given to the DOJ, but their issuance of an order will solely be based on their good judgement, hoping they do it in good faith of the law. Other people see this as dangerous as DOJ will have jurisdiction over what content is valid online without going through proper court dispute process and give time for parties to respond.
Considering the nature of computer data, it can easily be altered, faked, or manipulated compared to physical forms of evidence; therefore, this provision can be used to frame-up a person basing only on prima facie evidences (self-evident/face-value evidences). In contrast with beyond reasonable doubt meaning that a reasonable person would conclude that there is no possible way the defendant could be innocent based upon the evidence presented. This is the reason why people want to petition this provision to the Supreme Court to prove it unconstitutional, as it would greatly hinder our freedom of expression.
The main author of that law, Senator Angara, as well as the other Senators agreed with the amendments or exclusion of certain provisions in that Act, including this one.
d.) Chapter IV, Section 12 "Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data" - Many people are worried of their personal privacy and private information, as well as the downloading or uploading of data when it comes to this law.
It states that, "Law enforcement authorities, with due cause, shall be authorized to collect or record by technical or electronic means traffic data in real-time." Emphasizing "due cause/probable cause" meaning a level of reasonable belief, based on facts that can be articulated, that is required to sue a person in civil court or to arrest and prosecute a person in criminal court. Before a person can be sued or arrested and prosecuted, the civil plaintiff or police and prosecutor must possess enough facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the claim or charge is true..
The provision defines traffic data which refers only to the communications origin, destination, route, time, date, size, duration, or type of underlying service, but not content, nor identities. All other data to be collected or seized or disclosed will require a court warrant. It also states the requirements on issuing a court warrant and one of these is that it would only be allowed if there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence.
Our service providers are also required to preserve traffic data and subscriber information for a minimum period of at least six months from the time of transaction. Law enforcement authorities may order a one-time expansion for another six months, provided, that the computer data preserved, transmitted, or stored by the SP is used as an evidence. [See: Chapter IV, Sec. 13]
The disclosure of these computer data still needs a court warrant in order to require any person or SP to disclose or submit the relevant information. [Chapter IV, Sec. 14]
I feel so violated. Seriously. Despite all these, the Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction over any violation of this Act. Warrants are issued by special cybercrime courts manned by specially trained judges to handle these kind of cases; thus, it safeguards our right for a just trial. [See: Chapter V, Sec. 21] also [See: Article III, Sec. 2 of the present Constitution]
Conclusion
What is so wrong with people being responsible for what they are doing? Of course, some provisions in that law are detrimental to us, but for the other parts of that law, I see nothing wrong with it. The bill was already made into a law, thus, it cannot be removed unless declared by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. [See: Art. VIII, Sec. 4, par 2] and [Art. VIII, Sec. 5 (2)(a) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution] However, as stated in the law's separability clause, Chapter VIII, Sec. 29, that if any provision of its Act is held invalid, the other provisions not affected shall remain in full force and effect. I personally see nothing wrong with the other provisions aside from the ones aforementioned above, this is good as it is.
The law was made with good-intent to protect us from the ever-expanding cyberspace. It has its loopholes, but we all need it to protect us from the continuing cyber crimes. We keep on complaining when crimes are blatant in our society, and now we even more complained when the government has been making solutions and remedies for it. What exactly do we want? I can understand that we need to exaggerate in order for the government to listen to our sentiments, but other people seem to blabber out things they don't even know, or worse, some people don't even care about it. We would only be able to truly appreciate our laws when we had become a victim of these crimes ourselves. That has been always the case. Are we still going to wait for that to happen?
I strongly believe we don't need to junk the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, but rather it needs to be thoroughly reviewed (along with public hearings), revised or amended, excluding the ambiguous and detrimental provisions as stated in the law such as online libel and DOJ's authority to issue restriction and blocking of computer data by themselves without a proper court order. These are all for the purpose of producing a better and more acceptable law for everyone.
References:
Passing a bill - Responsibility of both the government and its constituents
Abraham Lincoln once stated that the government is made of the people, by the people, and for the people. We are responsible for the ones we have elected, and it doesn't stop there. We should also keep an eye on their every activities, as they represent our will and aspirations. As provided in Article III, Sec. 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, "No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances." We enjoy the right to safeguard our basic rights and scrutinize the acts and conducts of public officials. This is very important on the moral and intellectual growth of the society and the whole nation, since freedom of expression is in the very nature of man to search for truth and perfection.
First and foremost, this should have not happened if all interest groups, through their corresponding representatives, have joined the public hearings conducted in the Congress. [See: Art. VI, Sec. 21 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution] Our attention is mostly focused on other things such as the Sin Tax Bill and RH Bill, and I personally admit it myself that I was not aware of the current situation of this law when it was still under the process of being discussed by our legislators. We are also partly responsible for what just happened, but I'm not sugar-coating the legislators' grave mistake such as when they overlooked the bicameral conference committee report which includes the online libel proposed by Senator Tito Sotto, he even had the guts to do that despite his infamous plagiarism and various criticisms against him.
Passage of RA No. 10175 - Where did it go wrong?
Article VI, Sec. 26, par. 1 and 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states the required processes on the making and passing of a bill. "No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency." I am sure there is no urgency on the matter to pass this law. So where exactly did it go wrong on the passing of Republic Act No. 10175?
The legislative history of Republic Act 10175 shows that the House and Senate approved the bicameral conference committee report on June 5, 2012, the same day it was submitted to both chambers for ratification. Just for people's information, the bicameral conference committee compromises the difference between the Senate and the House in the passage of a bill into law. The report or recommendation will have to be approved by both Houses in order that it will be considered passed by Congress and thereafter sent to the President for approval. One of the disadvantages of having a conference committee of both Houses is that it has the power to make any provisions as long as it still encompasses the subject matter, since there are no rules which limit them to a consideration of conflicting provisions. It is within its power to include in its report an entirely new provision that is not found either in the Senate or House Bill. It became bad to the eyes of the public because of Senator Sotto's proposal on the floor of online libel without even any objections from his colleagues. [See: Chapter II, Sec. 4(c)(4) - under content-related offenses]
After the deliberations, they should have given all of the legislators a copy of it for it to be thoroughly reviewed and given the corresponding final amendments before putting it into voting, but unfortunately, it didn't happen. The Senators admitted that the online libel was inserted without their knowledge or being unaware of it. Though, under the rules of parliamentary procedures, the Senators could make a motion to recess on the floor, in order for them to thoroughly review the bill. However, they just went ahead and approved the bill in its current form as given by the bicameral conference committee. All of the Senators should have been in full attendance on the day of final amendment and voting, but only a few of them were present. Miriam Defensor Santiago was not able to attend on the day of voting, and she personally admitted it herself the vagueness and loopholes of the passed law. The most atrocious part of it is that the president didn't bother to fully review the bill before signing it, considering this law is a very sensitive issue to us Filipino netizens.
Hacking is a crime
Now, about that hacktivist group, Anonymous. That shit is gay. They can only fight behind the government's back unlike the other protesters. Now, I am sure some of you will tell me that it is their right of freedom of expression as provided in Article III of our Constitution — The Bill of Rights. Let me tell you this, then. Freedom of Speech is not absolute. It is subject to the regulation of the State and subject one person to liability when abused. We have our rights, but these rights are not honored when it violate the rights of other people, especially a larger community or the society as a whole.
Hacking government websites can be considered as a serious crime as it disrupts the work of public office, and puts public documents and other classified information at risk due to unauthorized access of these files. Moreover, there was a news report that these hackers make use of our personal accounts and information for their hacking attacks which puts us innocent internet users at risk of being sued by the authorities. I would rather choose the government to track and record our activities rather than letting an anonymous group to take control of my accounts without any liabilities. By this reason, it is considered as a violation of our supreme law of the land and other statutes.
The good thing about their simultaneous hacking movement is that it shows the vulnerability of the hacked websites, thus, they (the webmasters) will make corresponding remedies to further enhance their security. They only have the guts to do it because they know that the government don't have the means to protect I.T. documents, but I can perceive that the government would gradually enhance their cyber law enforcement capability, since the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 had been passed. [See: Chapter IV, Sec. 24 - Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center] and [Chapter III, Sec. IV - Law Enforcement Authorities]
Vague and Overpowered Provisions
What makes a law very dangerous is the ambiguity of its provisions, as it could be used for ill-intent without us being aware of it, and this truly violates our rights and aspiration embodied in our Constitution.
a.) Chapter II, Sec. 4(c)(4) "Libel" - Even without being specifically stated in the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, online libel is still punishable under "Crimes against Honor" of the Revised Penal Code. Section 1, Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code defined libel as "public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead." [See also the other articles under "Crimes Against Honor" under the Revised Penal Code]
The enforcement of this law was only extended to the cyberspace. Despite all these, under Article 361 of the Revised Penal Code, it is stated that in every criminal prosecution of libel, if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants shall be acquitted. In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted. Moreover, Article III, Sec. 4 of our present Constitution safeguards our right of freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. This means that we can scrutinize the acts and conducts of public officials when we see them commit a violation of our laws or even just public office misconduct, given that it is factual and true.
Some people see this provision as a double jeopardy and violates again one of the provisions of the Constitution under Article III, Sec. 21 - "No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act." Our right against double jeopardy forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same or similar charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction, or in any other manner without the express consent of the accused. However, there are two classes of double jeopardy as defined by the Constitution. We are protected against double jeopardy for the same offense, meaning it is exactly or identically the same as the previous offense that had already been given a verdict by the court. The other one is double jeopardy of punishment for the same act, meaning if the act (e.g., stealing, killing) is punishable by a law and an ordinance, which can be prosecuted as a different case.
Double jeopardy is only applied to the same crime, committed in the same place, for the same purpose, and with the same result. Here is an example to better explain this term. You were sued of libel by a certain person, at a certain date, time, and place, and then tried, and given a verdict by the court, let us say for instance, acquittal. You can't be sued again for the same offense you have done, since you were already given a judgement by the court, otherwise it will violate our right to be protected of the abuse of the justice system. However, if you committed another libel case to a different person, at a different place, time, and date, then it is an entirely different matter on which you can be prosecuted.
This online libel provision is already ambiguous in its form, whether it inflicts higher penalty or anyone can file libel, given its difference in nature with the other forms of libel such as oral defamation and in writing. Due to this unending conflict that is subject to abuse by other people, especially the ones in authority or the influential, other legislators forward decriminalization of libel in order to solve the present problem.
I personally find it absurd that the authorities will sue you for liking a wall post of a suspected criminal, and I don't see the logical reason behind people's exaggeration of that act. If that is the case, our government, including us, will become a laughing-stock by other countries due to the absurdity of this certain provision. I think our present administration doesn't have any plans to commit that suicide act, at least for now.
b.) Online crimes having higher penalties compared to offline offenses - Both online and offline cases should be given equal weights as it will be perceived as discrimination to online communities. This maybe due to the nature of the medium used that anyone could be victimized, the expensiveness of computer systems and network devices, and the violation is publicized, considering the wide extent of the cyberspace. The imposition of higher penalties serve as a discouragement to people to do such an act to prevent it from its occurrence, considering the "online" nature of the cyberspace that can possibly inflict a wide extent of damage to an individual/s.
An example of this is online child pornography. This provision imposes a penalty one degree higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775, if committed through a computer system. The dignity and sanctity of the child is severely damaged due to the possible wide extent of distribution of files and exposition of the person's naked body. [See: Chapter II, Sec. 4(c)(2) and Chapter III, Sec. 8 - Penalties]
c.) Chapter IV, Section 19 "Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data" - "When a computer data is prima facie (meaning on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts, unless rebutted or appealed) found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer data."
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is under the Cabinet of the President, therefore, is part of the Executive Branch of the government. It can be used as a means for their own propaganda and interest that favors their objectives. Under Article III, Sec. 4, par 1 and 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, it states that "The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law."
This is perceived as like a Martial Law due to the vast powers vested on the DOJ. We want our judiciary to be the one to issue this order, however, we cannot deny the fact that our judicial process is slow. Thus, while the judge is contemplating his decision, the "objectionable" materials may already be causing damage that could easily been averted otherwise. So, given the circumstances, this might been the reason of the legislators to provide the authority to the Department of Justice instead of the judicial courts. Though, only the restriction and blocking of computer data are given to the DOJ, but their issuance of an order will solely be based on their good judgement, hoping they do it in good faith of the law. Other people see this as dangerous as DOJ will have jurisdiction over what content is valid online without going through proper court dispute process and give time for parties to respond.
Considering the nature of computer data, it can easily be altered, faked, or manipulated compared to physical forms of evidence; therefore, this provision can be used to frame-up a person basing only on prima facie evidences (self-evident/face-value evidences). In contrast with beyond reasonable doubt meaning that a reasonable person would conclude that there is no possible way the defendant could be innocent based upon the evidence presented. This is the reason why people want to petition this provision to the Supreme Court to prove it unconstitutional, as it would greatly hinder our freedom of expression.
The main author of that law, Senator Angara, as well as the other Senators agreed with the amendments or exclusion of certain provisions in that Act, including this one.
d.) Chapter IV, Section 12 "Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data" - Many people are worried of their personal privacy and private information, as well as the downloading or uploading of data when it comes to this law.
It states that, "Law enforcement authorities, with due cause, shall be authorized to collect or record by technical or electronic means traffic data in real-time." Emphasizing "due cause/probable cause" meaning a level of reasonable belief, based on facts that can be articulated, that is required to sue a person in civil court or to arrest and prosecute a person in criminal court. Before a person can be sued or arrested and prosecuted, the civil plaintiff or police and prosecutor must possess enough facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the claim or charge is true..
The provision defines traffic data which refers only to the communications origin, destination, route, time, date, size, duration, or type of underlying service, but not content, nor identities. All other data to be collected or seized or disclosed will require a court warrant. It also states the requirements on issuing a court warrant and one of these is that it would only be allowed if there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence.
Our service providers are also required to preserve traffic data and subscriber information for a minimum period of at least six months from the time of transaction. Law enforcement authorities may order a one-time expansion for another six months, provided, that the computer data preserved, transmitted, or stored by the SP is used as an evidence. [See: Chapter IV, Sec. 13]
The disclosure of these computer data still needs a court warrant in order to require any person or SP to disclose or submit the relevant information. [Chapter IV, Sec. 14]
I feel so violated. Seriously. Despite all these, the Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction over any violation of this Act. Warrants are issued by special cybercrime courts manned by specially trained judges to handle these kind of cases; thus, it safeguards our right for a just trial. [See: Chapter V, Sec. 21] also [See: Article III, Sec. 2 of the present Constitution]
Conclusion
What is so wrong with people being responsible for what they are doing? Of course, some provisions in that law are detrimental to us, but for the other parts of that law, I see nothing wrong with it. The bill was already made into a law, thus, it cannot be removed unless declared by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. [See: Art. VIII, Sec. 4, par 2] and [Art. VIII, Sec. 5 (2)(a) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution] However, as stated in the law's separability clause, Chapter VIII, Sec. 29, that if any provision of its Act is held invalid, the other provisions not affected shall remain in full force and effect. I personally see nothing wrong with the other provisions aside from the ones aforementioned above, this is good as it is.
The law was made with good-intent to protect us from the ever-expanding cyberspace. It has its loopholes, but we all need it to protect us from the continuing cyber crimes. We keep on complaining when crimes are blatant in our society, and now we even more complained when the government has been making solutions and remedies for it. What exactly do we want? I can understand that we need to exaggerate in order for the government to listen to our sentiments, but other people seem to blabber out things they don't even know, or worse, some people don't even care about it. We would only be able to truly appreciate our laws when we had become a victim of these crimes ourselves. That has been always the case. Are we still going to wait for that to happen?
I strongly believe we don't need to junk the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, but rather it needs to be thoroughly reviewed (along with public hearings), revised or amended, excluding the ambiguous and detrimental provisions as stated in the law such as online libel and DOJ's authority to issue restriction and blocking of computer data by themselves without a proper court order. These are all for the purpose of producing a better and more acceptable law for everyone.
References:
Spoiler:
0
Sucks about that new law. But I would find more legal ways to protest your greivence. As said above, hacking hurts everyone envolved in the long run. GOOD LUCK!
0
Eh, it wont stop them.
There is always an alliterative.
But glad it doesnt go in affect where i live.
They will never take away my lolicon stash! >:3
Also.
https://www.fakku.net/viewtopic.php?t=94918
and at the rate this is going its only a matter of time before child porn will be legal! <3
There is always an alliterative.
But glad it doesnt go in affect where i live.
They will never take away my lolicon stash! >:3
Also.
https://www.fakku.net/viewtopic.php?t=94918
and at the rate this is going its only a matter of time before child porn will be legal! <3
0
Yeesh, that's a frigging essay you got there, Harontiar. Did you type that yourself? That level of text is just absurd in its length for anything outside of Serious Discussion.
Child porn is bad, Sluttershy. Reality shouldn't have such a thing exist. I'm looking forward to seeing how this thread becomes derailed because you said that.
Child porn is bad, Sluttershy. Reality shouldn't have such a thing exist. I'm looking forward to seeing how this thread becomes derailed because you said that.
-1
Daggerrise wrote...
Yeesh, that's a frigging essay you got there, Harontiar. Did you type that yourself? That level of text is just absurd in its length for anything outside of Serious Discussion.Child porn is bad, Sluttershy. Reality shouldn't have such a thing exist. I'm looking forward to seeing how this thread becomes derailed because you said that.
Eh, they cant stop me.
We all have our fetishes and mine just happens to be lolicon.
It cant be helped nor prevented.
The word isnt perfect. But derailed or not its not my thread and the fuck it give is 0. :3
0
artcellrox
The Grey Knight :y
Daggerrise wrote...
Child porn is bad, Sluttershy. Reality shouldn't have such a thing exist. I'm looking forward to seeing how this thread becomes derailed because you said that. And that makes number 3. Go on, change your sig, lol.
