The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, also known as Republic Act 10175, may aim to bring crime-fighting into

the 21st century by addressing harmful acts committed with the use of the worldwide web but it raises the risk of rights violations and curtailment of freedom of expression and of the press by expanding the concept of the criminalized act of libel. The law also raises the penal sentence for libel committed in cyberspace one year longer than that imposed in the Revise Penal Code for libel in general. It is highly advisable that the imperfections in the law, the provisions that conflict with other aspects of good governance and national and international obligations, be corrected soon through amendments. Strong leadership does not shirk from acknowledging the need to revise and strengthen policy and law. The calls for amendment should not be seen as personal attacks on anyones character or effectiveness. UN scrutiny This law was enacted just as the Philippines is about to face scrutiny by human rights experts in the UN Human Rights Committee on its civil and political rights situation (on October 13). Only a few months ago, the Committee, which monitors the compliance of states parties with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), cited the Philippines for imprisoning a journalist under the RPC libel provision as being inconsistent with the ICCPRs provision on freedom of expression. The government had just recently had to defend and explain the countrys civil and political rights record before lawmakers in the US and civil and political rights were a main area of inquiry in May when the country underwent the Universal Periodic Review at the UN Human Rights Council. Rather than expanding the number of acts and ways in which a person could be imprisoned and criminally charged for libel, the Philippines has been urged for several years to decriminalize libel. In addition to the libel provision, there are other provisions that are inconsistent with rights standards such as the lack of clear limits on the initial fact gathering by investigators will they look into our private correspondence and posts including email as they search for possible libellous statements or pornographic material? The authority given to the Department of Justice to block access to sites at an early stage is a gray area, which could impinge on rights to property and right to information in addition to freedom of expression and of the press. Remember the criticism over the blocking of access to certain sites by the Chinese government around the Beijing Olympics. 'Decriminalization of defamation' The Office of the President has replied to the outcry against the libel provision in the new law by saying that freedom comes with responsibility. Yes, and, indeed we all have responsibilities to respect the rights of others and the press is obliged to observe professional ethical standards, but the regulation of freedom, in order to impose responsibility and order, should not cross the line

into curtailment of the freedom or creating an environment in which such rights cannot be fully and equally enjoyed. While the Convention does allow sovereign governments to regulate freedom of expression, such regulation should be done in a way that does not curtail the freedom. The Committee further elaborates in General Comment No. 34 (2011), States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case, the application of the criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty. Among the ironies of the relatively quick passage of this legislation and the timing thereof: 1. It is not compliant with the ICCPR, which was ratified by President Corazon C. Aquino, after decades of non-ratification by President Ferdinand Marcos; 2. It was signed by President Benigno S. Aquino III days before the country marked the 40th anniversary of the declaration of Martial Law, a period whose chief characteristics include repression of the freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and the right to political participation and dissent; and 3. The 1987 Constitution, whom the President and all the lawmakers have sworn to uphold has a number of provisions with which this law is not consistent, including the provision that No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press... (Art. 3, Sec. 4), the guarantee of full respect for human rights, the recognition of the vital role of communication and information in nation-building, and the inviolable right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures." 4. The Internet is a vital, affordable, empowering tool to monitoring governance, for transparency, and for political participation by the people of the Philippines, whom the President said in his inaugural speech are his boss. 'Actions of authoritarian regimes' Criminal provisions that raise the fear of imprisonment for thoughts expressed on the Internet have the result of encouraging self-censorship on the very media that empowers the poor, the marginalized, and the vulnerable. With the Internet, opinions and input into governance including complaints can be raised to the public by any Juan at very little cost; it is no longer necessary to control or have access to print or broadcast media. Would the government that claims to be pro-poor and spends billions of pesos on the Conditional Cash Transfer program give with one hand but take away with the other, and take away something of such great importance as voice and participation? Why is the freedom of expression so important? Because only free and full discourse allows deep examination of matters of social, political, and other import (as well as those of little policy or governance import). Information, analysis, and commentary that flow freely from various holders of opinion are the most important tools for transparency, accountability and good governance. Note that one of the first actions of authoritarian regimes is to take control of the

media and muzzle the information channels of those who dissent or are likely to dissent. Freedom of expression includes political discourse, commentary on ones own and on public affairs, canvassing, discussion of human rights, journalism, cultural and artistic expression, teaching, and religious discourse, according to the UN Committee on Human Rights. The Cybercrime law has a laudable objective to prevent and punish criminal acts that make use of the Internet and the worldwide web, including fraud, pornography and others. However, all government actors must be aware of the obligation to balance crime-fighting objectives with human rights standards. This is principle is neither new nor impossible to implement. The laws weaknesses as to its compliance with human rights standards and obligations which should not have occurred if, as now practiced by many committees in the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Commission on Human Rights was invited to comment on the draft bills as a resource body. The case of journalist Alexander Adonis The most worrisome aspect of the bill is its wholesale adoption of the provision on libel from the Revised Penal Code, and the raising of the punishment. Libel should not be one of the acts punished as a crime in this law which aims to bring Philippine laws into the 21st century. In fact, the decriminalization of libel in the Philippines is long overdue. As recently as this year, the imprisonment of journalist Alexander Adonis under this legal provision was cited by the UN Human Rights Committee as incompatible with article 19, paragraph 3, of the [International] Covenant [on Civil and Political Rights]. In other words, the Philippines violated the Covenant, which the Philippines ratified in 1987, specifically, by the President Corazon C. Aquino, using her special legislative and executive powers. The Covenant, a.k.a. the ICCPR, provides in Article 19: 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals. This article, which was drafted in the 1960s, was drafted in such as way as to anticipate developments in technologies and media. Note the phrase in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

Moving backwards in defense of truth The Human Rights Committee elaborated on this treaty provision with General Comment No. 34, which provides that defamation laws must be crafted with care to ensure that they comply with paragraph 3, and that they do not serve, in practice, to stifle freedom of expression. All such laws, in particular penal defamation laws, should include such defenses as the defense of truth and they should not be applied with regard to those forms of expressions that are not, of their nature, subject to verification. "At least with regard to comments about public figures, consideration should be given to avoiding penalizing or otherwise rendering unlawful untrue statements that have been published in error but without malice. In any event, a public interest in the subject matter of the criticism should be recognized as a defense. Care should be taken by states parties to avoid excessively punitive measures and penalties. ... States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case, the application of the criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty. Does the Philippines want to demonstrate that it is moving backward on human rights, rather than forwards The country already faces continuing criticism for failure to prevent further extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, and for a lack of criminal prosecutions of such violations and torture. It would be a shame to add to the list of human rights issues for the Philippines. It is worth noting the other countries where there have been recent criminal cases against journalists - Belarus, Ecuador, Burundi all for criticizing the national leaders. Just this July, the President of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights was sentenced to jail for libel, for a Tweet message criticizing the Prime Minister and the people of a region in north Bahrain. To be fair, some effort went into some protections of civil rights in this law, including the requirement for a court warrant to collect, seize or disclose any data other than traffic data in real-time associated with specified communications transmitted by means of a computer system (Section 12). However, this still raises a question about the right to privacy will they be monitoring without a warrant ANY traffic in real time, in order to identify potentially libellous, pornographic, or otherwise prohibited input/posts on the internet, even those that are supposed to be private such as email? The more protective provision would have specified that such collection and recording of data is allowable without a warrant only as to public posts on public sites, wherein the poster has no reasonable expectation of privacy. Without such protection, cyber-snooping would ensue in the name of law enforcement or intelligence gathering analogous to improper and illegal wire tapping and reading of correspondence. In the area of right to security of property and correspondence, as guaranteed by the Constitution (Art. 3, section) - Section 15 (e) of the Cybercrime law gives the law enforcers, within the time specified in the warrant, to render inaccessible or remove those computer data in the accessed computer or computer and communications network. Section 17 even provides for Destruction

of Computer Data, Upon expiration of the periods as provided in Sections 13 and 15, service providers and law enforcement authorities, as the case may be, shall immediately and completely destroy the computer data subject of a preservation and examination." But what are the protections for the owner of such data? What if a criminal case is filed and the defendant wins? How will such removed data, which is the legal property of the defendant or other party, be restored? Strong support of President The provisions that went into the cybercrime law is something that the government has had strong influence on; the statements from the Office of the President even after criticism of the act and moves by senators to amend it indicate that it has the Presidents strong support as is. There is no shame in amending a law, even soon after its signing. Rather, it would be a strong signal that the legislative and executive powers are willing to listen to input from various sectors of society on a matter of great importance and impact, to review actions taken with a view to better compliance with all legal obligations and to further improvement of policy, and to act for the welfare of all in many dimensions from peace and order to human rights.

AngBatas RepublikaBilang 10175, o mas kilalabilangCybercrime Prevention Act ng 2012, ay isangbatasnatumutukoy at nagpaparusasacybercrime o mgakrimengnagaganapsapamamagitanngInternetupangpigilan at iwasanangpagdaminito. Nilalayonngbatasnaitonaganapnamaiwasan at labananangmalingpaggamit, abuso at iligalnapaggamitnginternetsapamamagitanngpagtukoy, pag-iimbestiga at pagsuplongngkapwasalokal o pandaigdigangantas, at sapagbibigayngmaayosnausapanparasa mas mabilis at maaasahangpakikipag-ugnayangpandaigdigan. Para buuin at ipatupadangisangplanongkaligtasangcyber o cyber security plan, bubuuinangCyber Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC) sailalimngpangangasiwangTanggapanngPangulo. Ginawaangbatasnaitongmgakinatawansakongresonasina Susan Yap (Ikalawang Distrito ngTarlac), Eric Owen Singson, Jr. (Ikalawang Distrito ngIlocos Sur), MarcelinoTeodoro (Unang Distrito ngLungsod Marikina) at Juan Edgardo Angara (Nag-iisang Distrito ngAurora). NagingkasamangtagagawanamanangmgakinatawangsinaGloria Macapagal-Arroyo (Ikalawang Distrito ngPampanga), Diosdado Arroyo (Ikalawang Distrito ngCamarines Sur), Carmelo Lazatin (Unang Distrito ng Pampanga), Rufus Rodriguez (Ikalawang Distrito ngLungsodngCagayan de Oro), Maximo Rodriguez, Jr. (Party-list, Abante Mindanao), Mariano Michael Velarde at Irwin Tieng (Party-list, BUHAY), Romeo Acop (Ikalawang Distrito ngLungsodngAntipolo), Bernadette Herrera-Dy (Party-list, BagongHenerasyon), Anthony Rolando Golez (Nag-iisang Distrito ngLungsodngBacolod), Juan Miguel Macapagal-Arroyo (Party-list, AngGalingPinoy), Ma. AmelitaCalimbas-Villarosa (Nag-iisang Distrito ngOccidental Mindoro), Antonio Del Rosario (Unang Distrito ngCapiz), Winston Castelo(Ikalawang Distrito

ngLungsod Quezon), Eulogio Magsaysay (Party-list, AVE), SigfridoTinga (Ikalawang Distrito ngLungsodngTaguig), RoiloGolez (Ikalawang Distrito ngLungsodngParaaque), Romero Federico Quimbo (Ikalawang Distrito ngLungsodng Marikina), Mel Senen Sarmiento (Unang Distrito ngKanlurangSamar), Cesar Sarmiento (Nag-iisang Distrito ngCatanduanes), Daryl Grace Abayon (Party-list, AangatTayo), Tomas Apacible (Unang Distrito ngBatangas), Jerry Treas (Nag-iisang Distrito ngLungsodngIloilo), Joseph Gilbert Violago (Ikalawang Distrito ngNueva Ecija), HermilandoMandanas (Ikalawang Distrito ngBatangas), Ma. Rachel Arenas (Ikatlong Distrito ngPangasinan) at Ma. Victoria Sy-Alvarado (Unang Distrito ngBulacan). Para mabasaangbuongbatasnanilagdaanngPangulongBenigno Aquino III, maaaringpindutinito. Maaari ring basahinangorihinalnaginawangMababangKapulungan at Senado.
http://fil.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Cybercrime_Prevention_Act