Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012---a direct attack against Internet Freedom?

Is the newly signed law, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, in its present form, infringes on our right to self-expression?

Before we conclude let us discuss what the law is all about. If you read Republic Act of 10175, it basically punishes the ways on which, technically, someone can harm another one via the Internet. These acts are universally or widely recognized as acts which are criminal by nature. 

Let me quote a section of the law which discusses these acts deemed criminal by RA 10175:

Section 4 Cybercrime Offenses. – The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable under this Act:

(a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of computer data and systems.
(1) Illegal access – The access to the whole or any part of a computer system without right.
(2) Illegal interception – The interception made by technical means without right of any non-public transmission of computer data to, from, or within a computer system including electromagnetic emissions from a computer system carrying such computer data.
(3) Data Interference – The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.
(4) System Interference – The intentional alteration or reckless hindering or interference with the functioning of a computer or computer network by inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer data or program, electronic document, or electronic data messages, without right or authority, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.
(5) Misuse of devices
(i) The use, production, sale, procurement, importation, distribution, or otherwise making available, without right, of:
(aa) a device, including a computer program, designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this Act; or
(bb) A computer password, access code, or similar data by which the whole or any part of a computer system is capable of being accessed with intent that it be used for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this Act.
(ii) The possession of an item referred to in paragraphs 5(i)(aa) or (bb) above with the intent to use said devices for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this section.
(6) Cyber-squatting. The acquisition of domain name over the Internet in bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy reputation, and deprive others from the registering the same, if such a domain name is:
(i) Similar, identical, or confusingly similar to an existing trademark registered with the appropriate government agency at the time of the domain name registration;
(ii) Identical or in any way similar with the name of a person other than the registrant, in case of a personal name, and
(iii) Acquired without right or with intellectual property interests in it.
(b) Computer-related Offenses:
(1) Computer-related Forgery:
(i) The input, alteration, or deletion of computer data without right resulting in inauthentic data with the intent that it be considered or acted upon for legal purposes as if it were authentic, regardless whether or not the data is directly readable and intelligible; or
(ii) The act of knowingly using computer data which is the product of computer-related forgery as defined here, for the purpose of perpetuating a fraudulent or dishonest design.
(2) Computer-related Fraud. The unauthorized input, alteration, or deletion of computer data or program or interference in the functioning of a computer system, causing damage thereby with fraudulent intent; Provided, That if no damage has yet been caused, the penalty imposed shall be one (1) degree lower.
(3) Computer-related Identity Theft. The intentional acquisition, use, misuse, transfer, possession, alteration or deletion of identifying information belonging to another, whether natural or juridical, without right. Provided, That if no damage has yet been caused, the penalty imposed shall be one (1) degree lower.
(c) Content-related Offenses:
(1) Cybersex – The willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favor or consideration.
(2) Child Pornography – The unlawful or prohibited acts defined and punishable by Republic Act No. 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009, committed through a computer system. Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775.
(3) Unsolicited Commercial Communications – The transmission of commercial communication with the use of computer system which seek to advertise sell, or offer for sale products and services are prohibited unless:
(1) There is prior affirmative consent from the recipient;
or
(ii) The primary intent of the communication is for service and / or administrative announcements from the sender to its existing users, subscribers or customers; or
(iii) The following conditions are present:
(aa) The commercial electronic communication contains a simple, valid, and reliable way for the recipient to reject receipt of further commercial electronic messages (opt-out) from the same source;
(bb) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely disguise the source of the electronic message; and
(cc) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely include misleading information in any part of the message in order to induce the recipients to read the message.
(4) Libel. – The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.
Section 5. Other Offenses – The following acts shall also constitute an offense:
(a) Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime – Any person who willfully abets or aids in the commission of any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.
(b) Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime – Any person who willfully attempts to commit any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.
Section 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act. Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be.
Section 7. Liability under Other Laws. – A prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws.

If you look at these acts being punished by the law, these border on the technical or ways in which someone would be able to harm another through the use of the internet. Those contentious provisions which penalizes content are nowhere to be found. 

The only reference to a content-related act punishable under these laws are contained in this statement: " Libel.---the unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future."

Libel, as defined in Article 355 of the RPC, pertains to:

"...as a 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 discredit or cause the dishonor or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. Thus, the elements of libel are: (a) imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another; (b) publication of the imputation; (c) identity of the person defamed; and, (d) existence of malice.  [Daez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 47971, 31 October 1990, 191 SCRA 61, 67]"

For an online blog post to qualify for libel, the blog entry should contain an accusation that someone made or committed a crime, that the person accused has been identified and that the publication was made with malice. If the blog entry expresses an emotion about an act reportedly committed by another, and it was a true observation and the publication of such was without malice, then, it will not qualify for libel. 

So there.

I think this law is a well-crafted one, meant to really punish those who use the internet for selling sexual content or using it to damage someone's reputation or affect someone's identity.