Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012--unconstitutional, says Santiago

The light of reason is again shining at the Senate. At least one of them said the law is unconstitutional.

Senator Miriam Santiago yesterday said Republic Act 10175 otherwise known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is unconstitutional.  Santiago says the new law has vague provisions, and should have been put on hold by her colleagues pending clarification. 

Another senator, Greg Honasan urged for a temporary stoppage of its implementation until those vague provisions of this law be cleared. 

The two senators came forward shortly after their colleague Senator Ed Angara, the main proponent of the law, called for his colleagues to stand by what they approved. 

Angara is the only lone voice in the chamber that recognizes the firmity of the law. Others, including President Aquino has recognized several infirmities in the present form and also joined in the chorus of amending the law prior to implementing it.

Senator Chiz Escudero has earlier expressed his "opposition" and is willing to amend certain provisions of the law, including the contentious provision about libel.

Those others who approved the law are: Koko Pimentel, Pia Cayetano, Bong Revilla, Jinggoy Estrada, Ping Lacson, Lito Lapid, Ralph Recto, Bongbong Marcos and Manny Villar.

Why are these senators so afraid of online media? Simple---they don't want to be exposed as frauds or BOPOLs or Bobong Politicos.

Inspite of being a bar top notcher, Koko Pimentel probably forgot what he learned from Constitutional Law 1 and 2. Probably, he was so distracted by his annulment trial that he forgot that a State is not bound to follow international conventions, especially since local laws exist of the same nature.

Deliberate misreading of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime led to an erroneous Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012

Tarlac Congresswoman Susan Yap, wife of ex-Legislator Yap, is the author of the much-criticized Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Yap says she authored the bill in because the Philippines is signatory to an international convention on cybercrime prevention.

She, however, did not specify this convention.

The Budapest Convention on Cybercrime is, at present, the only international treaty which tries to combat cybercrime by "harmonising national laws, improving investigative techniques and increasing international cooperation." This convention involves all forms of online criminal activity including copyright infringement, computer-related fraud, child pornography and violations of network security. 

The Council of Europe, together with Canada, Japan and China, drew this document up.

I read the Budapest Convention, and really, there is nothing wrong with this which took effect in 2006. If the Philippines is one of the signatories of such a convention, it is expected considering that the forms of cybercrimes which sprouted in the Philippines are also similar with those encountered by other countries.

What is most perplexing to me is the interpretation of members of the Philippine Congress. Congresswoman Yap interpreted this convention to mean that signatory states are mandated to craft their own cybercrime bill to coincide with the contents of this convention.

What an erroneous interpretation! There is nothing in the bill which encourages states to draft new legislation. Even the European Union (EU) and the United States are not required to draft a new cybercrime law. 

The convention only seeks to harmonize what? It seeks international cooperation in combatting the serious cybercrimes especially child pornography, computer-related fraud, etal. Signatory states are just required to harmonize their existing laws on cybercrime with those contained in this convention. 

Now, does the international community condemn online libel as part of cybercrime? NO!!

Nowhere in the convention seeks the destruction of the freedom of speech and privacy laws, such as the one now inserted in the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 in the Philippines.

Throughout the world, the trend really is the de-criminalization of libel. Now, with online libel having a harsher or stiffer penalty than print or electronic media libel, it shows how different Filipinos especially those in the elite groups, view democracy.

Let me state here what EU High Commissioner Catherine Ashton said in a Cyberspace Conference in Budapest:

"We should find ways to apply the principles of

those commonly accepted laws also in this new

domain, rather than starting to draft new ones," she

said.

 The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees the right to privacy, right to freedom of expression and sanctions against enticement to hatred, while the Geneva Convention safeguards the rule of law during wartime.

Read more: http://www.techcentral.ie/20026/new-cybercrime-laws-not-necessary-says-eu-chief#ixzz28PyDsXEy

Cybercrime Prevention Act and the Supreme Court's refusal to issue TRO---test case for real martial law declaration?

The refusal by the Supreme Court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the implementation of the much-criticized Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 sends a chilling effect on those who love democracy.

It is not, says the Supreme Court, that they don't like to issue TRO's, except that, in this case, they have to consolidate the numerous petitions filed by numerous individuals and groups against the law. Consolidation takes time.

In a real-life martial law scenario, surely, there would be numerous individuals filing petitions simultaneously. Don't tell me that the Supreme Court would not issue a TRO just because they want to consolidate those petitions first and read them, and render a decision a few days or weeks after. The effects of such actions are catastrophic. 

In a 48-hour scenario after a declaration of martial law, it would be enough time to round up thousands of dissidents or suspected enemies of the state. It would have also caused billions of pesos of lost revenues. It would have led to a shutdown of businesses suspected of being enemies of the Aquino administration.

Malacanang is closely monitoring this because this is a test case on how the Supreme Court might react in situations like these. Since Malacanang already knew that it would take days before the SC acts as the people's savior, this is more than enough to assure the Power Freaks inside Bahay Pangarap of a possible sweetheart time if and when they so declare a State of Emergency, or a State suspending Habeas Corpus or martial law.

Beware. Be very much aware.

Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is Noynoy's answer to those who says he's psychotic

Are we overreacting? That this administration meant well when it passed the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012? That this law was meant not to stifle individual freedoms, as what this Justice secretary Leila de Lima claims, but to curb the rising incidence of cyber attacks and online scams victimizing thousands of unknowing Filipinos?

NOTHING FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH. 

We are protesting this law because it sets back the democratic gains the People have worked on for over forty decades---the eradication of all forms of dictatorship.

Dictatorship has never been a very bright solution against rising dissent. When the State uses its police powers to make people "toe the line", people react differently. Draconian measures are never really effective deterrents or solutions to silence opposition. Dissent will forever be a fixture of a democratic society. For a democracy to truly be effective, everyone must respect other people's opinions and views.

When governments show intolerance and flex its muscles to show everyone how strong it is, that actually shows how weak it truly is. 

A weak government is intolerant, feisty and most of the time,  overreacting.

This is the true state of the Aquino administration---a paranoid administration whose claim to power is its supposed adherence to the right path.

Why is this administration so paranoid? Aquino and his lackeys fear that the people will eventually discover how corrupt and how brazen his people are in stealing the people's monies.

Aquino's buddies and close associates are robbing us blind. While we are being asked to believe how popular this President still is, the real situation is being hidden from our very eyes.

Aquino's close buddies are entering the second phase of this pseudo-populist leader's rule---the last three years will see Aquino's close buddies entering into numerous anomalous and illicit deals involving government projects.

One of them, the Entertainment City, the rampant smuggling of steel products, the illegal entry of millions of tons of rice, the supposed PPP projects which have never really taken off, and the direct and close involvement of Aquino's friends in jueteng and drugs.

That's why Aquino wants to gag our mouths---so that people like us would not be able to expose the excesses of his administration.

Aquino is deathly afraid that his weaknesses, his stupidity and his acute mental illness will eventually be exposed before the people. 

Why do I say that he's weak, stupid and suffers from mental illness?

Who in his right mind would sign a law that is so patently unconstitutional, the very smell of the paper which was used to print those idiotic words defining this Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is like that of vomit.

Aquino is a weak leader because he needs a law to punish those who criticize him. Why use your powers against people who hate you because you are an indecisive and patently weak leader?

Why blame people when they say you're stupid? Is it enough proof of your stupidity when you sign a law which sets back the gains your patriotic father worked for until his death in 1983?

And who in his right mind, would sign a law that places the accused in double jeopardy--something which the Constitution forbades. Who, in his sane mind, would sign a law that puts a penalty of imprisonment for something which is just an expression of self? 

Do you expect us, the people to stop telling you of who you really are and the people behind you?

No. 

These people---Chiz Escudero, Pia Cayetano, Lito Lapid, Trillanes, Enrile, Villar--are already part of a rotting and decrepit oligarchy that are full of egotistically maniacal people who wants to always flaunt their power before the people.

Let us show these people that the true masters of this beloved land are not them--but us. 

Down with the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.  

Stifling of Press Freedom--Never Again!! Raise our Clenched Fist Tomorrow---Black Wednesday Protest!

For more than twenty years, one man tried to stifle a nation's voice. He did it using military might. Thousands died trying to defend their rights against this man, who thought himself superior above all else. Millions also lived in darkness, fearing the cold that this man's act led to.

The Light shone once more when millions stood up against this Man and proved to him that the Filipino is free, our souls cannot ever be imprisoned!

Now, 2012, and we are supposed to be the "bosses" of this administration. We are supposed to be living in a democracy. We are supposed to be free men.

However, this Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 will try to setback the gains of democracy by four decades.

This law, which was signed by several BOPPOLS (Bogus People's Politicians), was meant to once again, muffle our mouths without using violence, but ostensibly, cloaking the muffling with law.

What is constitutional is our freedom, our rights to free expression which this law is trying very hard to limit, all because of the capriciousness of a few elites who, like their ancestor four decades ago, who thought himself superior above all others.

NEVER AGAIN!!! NEVER AGAIN WILL THIS NEWLY FOUND FREEDOM BE THREATENED BY SOME MEMBERS OF THE ELITE WHO FEELS THREATENED BY THE VERY SAME PEOPLE THEY HAVE SWORN TO SERVE!

WHY FEAR US, NETIZENS, IF THESE BOPPOLS DO ACTS WITH HONESTY AND WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF LAW!

RESIST, O YOU MEMBERS OF THE NEW GENERATION, STRUGGLE!!!

TOMORROW, WE RAISE OUR CLENCHED FISTS ONCE MORE AS WE TAKE THE PATH LEAST TAKEN!

FIGHT, FIGHT THIS GOVERNMENT WHO PRETENDS TO BE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE WHEN IN TRUTH AND IN FACT, THIS GOVERNMENT IS FOR THE FEW ELITES WHO WALLOW IN WEALTH WHILE THE PEOPLE WALLOW IN EXTREME POVERTY!!!!

RAISE OUR FISTS IN THE AIR AND FIGHT THE ENVELOPING DARKNESS!!!!

TOMORROW, WE UNITE AND DECLARE WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3 AS THE BLACKEST WEDNESDAY!

BLACK WEDNESDAY RUMBLE!!! WE RUMBLE THROUGH THE STREETS AND PROTEST THIS!

O YOUTH OF THIS GENERATION, RESIST! YOU ONLY HAVE YOUR CHAINS TO BREAK!!!

Resist the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012!

Presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda told Noemi Dado, a blogger, that freedom comes daw with responsibility. Or for some one to enjoy his rights, one needs to know that there is a corresponding responsibility into it.

Yes, we know that Mr. Lacierda. The thing about responsibilities is, the thing which a person needs to be responsible for must be clear and legal.

In the case of this Cybercrime Prevention Act, it is patently illegal and smells like shit.

Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution is very clear---no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble.."

This Constitutional provision is paramount, above every other single law there is about freedoms and liberties in expression. 

Now, here comes the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 which initially seeks to punish certain acts of individuals online. The Cybercrime law has laid down several acts which, at first glance, are harmless and okey since these pertain to divergent behaviors of online users, mostly programmers and Black Hats.

However, upon closer inspection of the law, those who crafted the final version of this law, inserted a very insidious provision--that of libel. Reading the provision, one might conclude that it was as harmless and as "regular" as what we read about Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, which punishes utterances meant to affect the reputation or name of a person or entity. These utterances should be meant to impute a crime or a commission of a crime, and it should be done "with malice".

There is no doubt---libelous statements do not have a space in the democratic society. However, the very definition of libel per se depends on so many factors, one of which is the perception of the receiver of the action.

Perception depends on so many things, one of which is basically ethno-cultural.

This law puts the accused with two counts of the same crime---a violation of a special law and a violation of a code. Meaning, you will be meted with violating Article 353 and this provision of a Republic Act---all in the same act! Is that double jeopardy or what?

Another defect of this law is allowing state security agencies to get computer data prior to filing a case against the perpetuator. This has a Martial Law flavor to it that I really don't want to delve into it much longer.

Instead of promoting the Freedom of Information Act, what this pseudo-democratic government pursued was an act further criminalizing thought, ideas and opinions.

Government's idea of democracy is patently delusional and different from what democracy is  really all about.

Democracy is when you can say what you want, do what you want but with one limitation---do it without harming others.

In the case of libel, if another person feels that he was harmed by another's statement, you can charge him.

You don't however, punish him for an act which is still in  infancy. That is pathetically absurd.

I imagine President Aquino hiding behind the cloak of this law because he is unable to hide behind the shirts of his sisters.

Bicam blamed for passage of defective Cybercrime Law

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is a very deceptive law. Though it limits the acts deemed "criminal" online, it nonetheless pushed several initiatives to "decriminalize" libel back by inserting a very insidious provision--that of punishing an act deemed "libelous" with an incarceration.

I, myself, am petrified by this. Imagine, efforts at de-criminalizing libel went from 100 to square one, all in just one stroke of President Aquino's pen. Cong. Palatino said that this penal provision was "inserted" by the very powerful Bicam. Palatino did not specify who among the members of this committee inserted this very deceptive provision.

This powerful "Third House of Congress", as what former Budget secretary Diokno describes it, is being blamed for the passage of this Cybercrime Prevention Act. 

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.