You are on page 1of 15

ACHTF

DATA / INFORMATION

Republic Act 10175 – Cybercrime Prevention Act was signed into law last September 12,
2012. This law is already in effect as the Supreme Court uphold its constitutionality
(February 18, 2014). Although some provisions were deemed as unconstitutional (struck down)
particularly Sections 4(c)(3), 7, 12, and 19.

It is a law considered to be 11 years in the making as various groups, organizations, and


personalities lobbied for its passage. It took awhile for the law to be passed as legislators and
various stakeholders need to understand the magnitude of cybercrime and whether the penalty
provisions indicated in the E-Commerce Law – Republic Act 8792 is sufficient or not.

At a PTV4 Forum on Anti-Cybercrime Law, Department of Justice Assistant Secretary Geronimo Sy


explained that laws on cybercrime are considered as the 3rd building block of legislations necessary
to protect the people from crimes committed in cyberspace and use of ICT. I always look at
cybercrime as something under the 2nd block or special penal laws (where I think the E-Commerce
Law is in). Although it seems there is now a set of laws in place that are already in that 3rd block and
increasing further (which may already include the E-Commerce Law as it is the first policy in place
against hacking and online piracy). As we use and integrate ICT and Internet in our lives, perhaps it
is possible that new forms of crimes can happen online and where broader or special legislation will
have to be created (that provides mandate for resource allotment too). Nevertheless, that
perspective, whether agreeable or not, brings the importance of having more organized groups of
netizens who can interact with policy makers proactively on Internet / ICT related policies and do its
share of stakeholder consultation.
From my review and understanding, the law:

1. Penalizes (section 8) sixteen types of cybercrime (Section 4). They are:

Types of Cybercrime Penalty


Prision mayor (imprisonment of six years
and 1 day up to 12 years) or a fine of at least
Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000) up
to a maximum amount commensurate to the
damage incurred or BOTH.————————If
1. Illegal access
committed against critical
Unauthorized access (without right) to a computer
infrastructure:Reclusion temporal
system or application.
(imprisonment for twelve years and one day
up to twenty years) or a fine of at least Five
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000) up to a
maximum amount commensurate to the
damage incurred or BOTH
2. Illegal interception
Unauthorized interception of any non-public
– same as above
transmission of computer data to, from, or within a
computer system.
3. Data Interference
Unauthorized alteration, damaging, deletion or
deterioration of computer data, electronic document,
or electronic data message, and including the
– same as above
introduction or transmission of viruses.Authorized
action can also be covered by this provision if the
action of the person went beyond agreed scope
resulting to damages stated in this provision.
4. System Interference
Unauthorized 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 – same as above
messages, and including the introduction or
transmission of viruses.Authorized action can also be
covered by this provision if the action of the person
went beyond agreed scope resulting to damages stated
in this provision.
5. Misuse of devices
The unauthorized use, possession, production, sale,
procurement, importation, distribution, or otherwise
making available, of devices, computer program
designed or adapted for the purpose of committing any – same as above except fine should be no
of the offenses stated in Republic Act more than Five hundred thousand pesos
10175.Unauthorized use of computer password, access (P500,000).
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 Republic Act 10175.
6. Cyber-squatting
Acquisition of domain name over the Internet in bad
faith to profit, mislead, destroy reputation, and deprive
others from the registering the same. This includes
those existing trademark at the time of registration;
names of persons other than the registrant; and
acquired with intellectual property interests in it.Those
who get domain names of prominent brands and – same as above
individuals which in turn is used to damage their
reputation – can be sued under this provision.Note
that freedom of expression and infringement on
trademarks or names of person are usually treated
separately. A party can exercise freedom of expression
without necessarily violating the trademarks of a
brand or names of persons.
7. Computer-related Forgery
Unauthorized input, alteration, or deletion of
computer data resulting to inauthentic data with the
Prision mayor (imprisonment of six years
intent that it be considered or acted upon for legal
and 1 day up to 12 years) or a fine of at least
purposes as if it were authentic, regardless whether or
Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000) up
not the data is directly readable and intelligible; orThe
to a maximum amount commensurate to the
act of knowingly using computer data which is the
damage incurred or BOTH.
product of computer-related forgery as defined here,
for the purpose of perpetuating a fraudulent or
dishonest design.
8. Computer-related Fraud
Unauthorized input, alteration, or deletion of – same as aboveProvided, That if no damage
computer data or program or interference in the has yet been caused, the penalty imposed
functioning of a computer system, causing damage shall be one (1) degree lower.
thereby with fraudulent intent.
9. Computer-related Identity Theft
Unauthorized acquisition, use, misuse, transfer,
possession, alteration or deletion of identifying – same as above
information belonging to another, whether natural or
juridical.
10. Cybersex
Willful engagement, maintenance, control, or
operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious
exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the
Prision mayor (imprisonment of six years
aid of a computer system, for favor or
and 1 day up to 12 years) or a fine of at least
consideration.There is a discussion on this matter if it
Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000)
involves “couples” or “people in relationship” who
but not exceeding One million pesos
engage in cybersex. For as long it is not done for favor
(P1,000,000) or BOTH.
or consideration, I don’t think it will be covered.
However, if one party (in a couple or relationship) sues
claiming to be forced to do cybersex, then it can be
covered.
11. Child Pornography
Penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree
Unlawful or prohibited acts defined and punishable
higher than that provided for in Republic Act
by Republic Act No. 9775 or the Anti-Child
9775, if committed through a computer
Pornography Act of 2009, committed through a
system.
computer system.
****** Unsolicited Commercial
Communications (SPAMMING)
THIS PROVISION WAS STRUCK DOWN BY
THE SUPREME COURT AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
12. Libel
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.Revised Penal Code Art. 355 states Libel
means by writings or similar means. — A libel
committed by means of writing, printing, lithography,
engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical
exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar
means, shall be punished by prision correccional in its Penalty to be imposed shall be one (1)
minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from degree higher than that provided for by the
200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil Revised Penal Code, as amended, and
action which may be brought by the offended special laws, as the case may be.
party.The Cybercrime Prevention Act strengthened
libel in terms of penalty provisions.

The electronic counterpart of libel has been


recognized since the year 2000 when the E-
Commerce Law was passed. The E-Commerce Law
empowered all existing laws to recognize its
electronic counterpart whether commercial or not in
nature.

Imprisonment of one (1) degree lower than


13. Aiding or Abetting in the commission of that of the prescribed penalty for the
cybercrime – Any person who willfully abets or aids offense or a fine of at least One hundred
in the commission of any of the offenses enumerated thousand pesos (P100,000) but not
in this Act shall be held liable. exceeding Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000) or both.
14. Attempt in the commission of
cybercrime Any person who willfully attempts to
– same as above
commit any of the offenses enumerated in this Act
shall be held liable.
15. All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised
Penalty to be imposed shall be one (1)
Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if
degree higher than that provided for by the
committed by, through and with the use of
Revised Penal Code, as amended, and
information and communications technologies shall be
special laws, as the case may be.
covered by the relevant provisions of this Act.
Although not exactly a cybercrime, I am including this For sanctioned actions, Juridical person
here as penalties are also imposed by the law. shall be held liable for a fine equivalent to at
16. Corporate Liability. (Section 9) least double the fines imposable in Section 7
When any of the punishable acts herein defined are up to a maximum of Ten million pesos
knowingly committed on behalf of or for the benefit of (P10,000,000).For neglect such as misuse of
a juridical person, by a natural person acting either computer resources that resulted to
individually or as part of an organ of the juridical cybercrime committed in organization
person, who has a leading position within, based physical or virtual premises or
on:(a) a power of representation of the juridical person resources, juridical person shall be held
provided the act committed falls within the scope of liable for a fine equivalent to at least double
such authority;(b) an authority to take decisions on the fines imposable in Section 7 up to a
behalf of the juridical person. Provided, That the act maximum of Five million pesos
committed falls within the scope of such authority; (P5,000,000).Criminal liability may still
or(c) an authority to exercise control within the apply to the natural person.
juridical person,It also includes commission of any of
the punishable acts made possible due to the lack of
supervision or control.

If you are going to include all provisions in the Revised Penal Code, there can even be more than
16 types of cybercrime as a result.

2. Liability on other laws

Section 7 was struck down by Supreme Court as it violated the provision on double
jeopardy.

3. Jurisdiction

(a) The Regional Trial Court designated special cybercrime courts shall have jurisdiction over any
violation of the provisions of this Act including any violation committed by a Filipino national
regardless of the place of commission. Jurisdiction shall lie if any of the elements was committed
within the Philippines or committed with the use of any computer system wholly or partly
situation in the country, or when by such commission any damage is caused to a natural or
juridical person who, at the time the offense was committed, was in the Philippines. (section 21)

(b) For international and trans-national cybercrime investigation and prosecution, all relevant
international instruments on international cooperation in criminal maters, arrangements agreed
on the basis of uniform or reciprocal legislation, and domestic laws, to the widest extent possible
for the purposes of investigations or proceedings concerning criminal offenses related to computer
systems and data, or for the collection of evidence in electronic form of a criminal offense shall be
given full force and effect. (section 21)

This gives the Philippines the ability to participate in treaties and of mutual cooperation with
countries that have counterpart legislation effectively – especially – on cybercrime cases that have
team members or victims residing in the Philippines.

4. Responsibilities of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and National Bureau of


Investigation (NBI)

The law gave police authorities the mandate it needs to initiate investigation to process the various
complaints / report it gets from citizens. There are instances of online attacks, done anonymously,
where victims approach police authorities for help. They often find themselves lost in getting
investigation assistance as police authorities can’t effectively initiate an investigation (only do
special request) – as their legal authority to request for logs or data does not exist at all unless a
case is already filed. (which in case of anonymously done – will be hard to initiate)

I truly believe in giving citizen victims, regardless of stature, the necessary investigation assistance
they deserve. This law – gave our police authorities just that.

The PNP and NBI shall be responsible for the enforcement of this law. This includes:
(a) The PNP and NBI are mandated to organize a cybercrime unit or center manned by special
investigators to exclusively handle cases involving violations of this Act. (Section 10).

(b) The PNP and NBI are required to submit timely and regular reports including pre-operation,
post operation, and investigation results and such other documents as may be required to the
Department of Justice for review and monitoring. (Section 11)

(c) THE SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN SECTION 12 THAT IS SUPPOSED TO


authorize law enforcement authorities, without court warrant, to collect or record
by technical or electronic means traffic data in real time associated with specified
communications transmitted by means of a computer system. (Section 12) Getting a COURT
WARRANT is a must.

(d) May order a one-time extension of another six (6) months on computer data requested for
preservation. Provided, That once computer data preserved, transmitted or stored by service
provider is used as evidence in a case, the mere furnishing to such service provider of the
transmittal document to the Office of the Prosecutor shall be deemed a notification to preserve the
computer data until the termination of the case. (Section 13)

(e) Carry out search and seizure warrants on computer data. (section 15) Once done, turn-over
custody in a sealed manner to courts within 48 hours (section 16) unless extension for no more
than 30 days was given by the courts (section 15).

(f) Upon expiration of time required to preserve data, police authorities shall immediately and
completely destroy the computer data subject of a preservation and examination. (section 17)

5. Responsibility of service providers (SP)

Service provider refers any public or private entity that provides to users of its service the ability
to communicate by means of a computer system, and processes or stores computer data on behalf
of such communication service or users of such service. (Section 3(n).

(a) SP upon receipt of a court warrant from police authorities to disclose or submit subscriber’s
information, traffic data or relevant data in its possession or control shall comply within seventy-
two (72) hours from receipt of the order in relation to a valid complaint officially docketed and
assigned for investigation and the disclosure is necessary and relevant for the purpose of
investigation. (section 14)

(b) The integrity of traffic data and subscriber information relating to communication services
provided by a service provider shall be preserved for a minimum of six (6) months period from the
date of the transaction. Content data shall be similarly preserved for six (6) months from the date
of receipt of the order from law enforcement authorities requiring its preservation.(Section 13)

(c) Once computer data preserved, transmitted or stored by service provider is used as evidence in
a case, the mere furnishing to such service provider of the transmittal document to the Office of
the Prosecutor shall be deemed a notification to preserve the computer data until the termination
of the case. (Section 13)

(d) Upon expiration of time required to preserve data, SP shall immediately and completely
destroy the computer data subject of a preservation and examination. (section 17)

(e) Failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter IV specifically the orders from law
enforcement authorities shall be punished as a violation of Presidential Decree No. 1829 with
imprisonment of prision correccional in its maximum period or a fine of One hundred thousand
pesos (P100,000) or both for each and every non-compliance with an order issued by law
enforcement authorities.

Service Provider protection insofar as liability is concern is already covered under the E-
Commerce Law.

6. Responsibility of individuals

(a) Individuals upon receipt of a court warrant being required to disclose or submit subscriber’s
information, traffic data or relevant data in his possession or control shall comply within seventy-
two (72) hours from receipt of the order in relation to a valid complaint officially docketed and
assigned for investigation and the disclosure is necessary and relevant for the purpose of
investigation.

(b) Failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter IV specifically the orders from law
enforcement authorities shall be punished as a violation of Presidential Decree No. 1829 with
imprisonment of prision correccional in its maximum period or a fine of One hundred thousand
pesos (P100,000) or both for each and every non-compliance with an order issued by law
enforcement authorities.

7. Inadmissible evidence

(a) Any evidence procured without a valid warrant or beyond the authority of the same shall be
inadmissible for any proceeding before any court or tribunal. (section 18)

8. Access limitation

The Supreme Court struck down Section 19 of the law that gives the Department of Justice powers
to order the blocking of access to a site provided there is prima facie evidence supporting it.

9. Cybercrime new authorities

(a) Office of Cybercrime within the DOJ designated as the central authority in all matters relating
to international mutual assistance and extradition. (section 23)

(b) Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC) an inter-agency body to be created
under the administrative supervision of the Office of the President, for policy coordination among
concerned agencies and for the formulation and enforcement of the national cybersecurity plan.
(section 24)

CICC will be headed by the Executive Director of the Information and Communications
Technology Office under the Department of Science and Technology as Chairperson with the
Director of the NBI as Vice Chairperson; the Chief of the PNP, Head of the DOJ Office of
Cybercrime; and one (1) representative from the private sector and academe, as members. (section
25)

The CICC is the cybercrime czar tasked to ensure this law is effectively implemented. (section 26)

Although the law specifically stated a fifty million pesos (P50,000,000) annual budget, the
determination as where it would go or allotted to, I assume shall be to the CICC.

DEBATE / DISPUTE on the Cybercrime Prevention Act.


In my discussion with lawyers, journalist, bloggers, among others, concerns were raised on how
the law can be in violation of the Constitution and other laws. This includes:

1. Discrimination against online crime.

In crimes committed online, the law gives higher penalty compared to its offline counterpart. This
is seen as violation of principles within the E-Commerce Law where both offline and online
evidence is given equal weight. In its implementing rules and regulations, it also indicated not to
give special benefit or penalty to electronic transactions just because it is committed online.

However, I note that perhaps the reason for this also is to increase the penalties. The original
Revised Penal Code for example gives penalty for libel in the amount of up to six thousand pesos
(P6,000).

2. Did the Cybercrime Law criminalized online libel? Will it result to double
jeopardy?
Some see the Cybercrime Law as enabling criminalization of online libel. I think that is not
correct.

Libel being a criminal offense was defined under the Revised Penal Code.

The E-Commerce Law empowered all existing laws to recognize its electronic counterpart. It
recognized both commercial and non-commercial in form. This made electronic documents (text
message, email, web pages, blog post, etc) admissible as evidence in court (and can’t be denied
legal admissibility just because it is electronic form and have the same primary evidence weight).
Existing penalties under the laws where offense fall in shall apply. That is why filing of libel cases
committed electronically became possible in the past years (and there were cases filed, some won,
some lost, and some are ongoing).

Libel is already a criminal offense under the Revised Penal Code as is. Then it got extended to its
electronic form since 2000 (with the recognition of its electronic form provided by the E-
Commerce Law) with existing penalties applying to it. With the Cybercrime Law, it increased the
penalty further if committed with the use of ICT.

According to Atty. Geronimo Sy (Department of Justice), during the PTV4 Forum on Anti-
Cybercrime Law, a complaint on electronic libel will only have one (1) case to be filed. The
maximum penalty for electronic libel is 8 years.

Hitting the “Like” button on Facebook does not make you commit the act of libel. In this ANC
interview, Senator Ed Angara clarified that posting a comment where you get to share your
thoughts is covered under “protected expression”.

The amount of penalty is still to be set by the DOJ as there is usually no automatic degree scaling
in special penal laws. If a person who got accused of committing electronic libel also did the same
in traditional (offline) form, only one case shall be filed. It will be interesting to see how the DOJ
will implement the scaling in effect as a result of this.

The mention of libel in the Cybercrime Law is the most contested provision in the law. The
additional penalties is seen to curtail freedom of expression. Most of the petitions against the
Cybercrime Law focused on this provision.

Numerous legislators are already expressing interest as well in amending the Cybercrime Law and
Revised Penal Code.

3. Real time data access

I appreciate the need for real-time access to data, such as cellular traffic data, especially in
tracking scammers and any critical incident as it happens (such as kidnapping and other in-
progress crimes) where immediate access is important.

However, the mining of this data for surveillance can be seen as subject abuse. Furthermore, if no
intervention such as a judge approval, comes first before getting access where need can be
justified.

Although I think this will slow down the process if anything needs court approval first. But other
parties believe that this is a must requirement. As the Supreme Court struck down Section
12, I hope processes will be set-up to assist law enforcement with its investigation, to
fasten court warrant issuance, especially as it receives complaints from victims of
cybercrime.
As the Cybercrime Law gets upheld by the Supreme Court, here are
my personal notes on the development of its implementing rules and
regulations:
1. Ensure that procedures for police assistance and securing court orders will be fair regardless
whether complainants can afford a lawyer or not to assist them.

2. Make the process for data access efficient so that text and online scams culprits can be made
accountable soon while ensuring that the data collected won’t be abused.

I am glad that lobbying moves to strike down the whole Cybercrime Prevention Act
(Republic Act 10175) did not prosper. The law has greater purposes and intentions
that can be helpful in protecting the interest of our netizens and country online.

Will update this document further (to be continued)

http://digitalfilipino.com/introduction-cybercrime-prevention-act-republic-act-10175/

OFFICE ADDRESS:

Anti-Cybercrime Group Building


Col. Lagman St., Bagong Lipunan Camp Crame,
Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines 1100

CONTACT NUMBERS:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline: 09985988116

Tel: +63 (02) 414-1560

Fax: +63 (02) 414-2199

Social Media

 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/anticybercrimegroup
 Twitter:

Email
 pnp.anticybercrimegroup@gmail.com
 infoacg@pnp.gov.ph

OFFICE DIRECTORY

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

Tel. +63 (02)723-0401 local 5592

DEPUTY CHIEF

Tel. +63 (02)723-0401 local 3559 VoIP ext. 1905

CHIEF OF STAFF

Tel. +63 (02)723-0401 local 5514

ADMINISTRATIVE AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DIVISION

Tel. +63 (02)723-0401 local 3562

 Personnel and Records Management Section


 Logistic Section
 Maintenance Section
 Budget and Fiscal Section
ANTI-CYBERCRIME OPERATIONS AND TRAINING DIVISION

Tel. +63 (02)723-0401 local 5313

 Operation Section, Tel. +63 (02)723-0401 local 5313


 Intelligence Section
 Investigation Section, Tel. +63 (02)723-0401 local 5313
 Web/Network Forensic Section, Tel. +63 (02)723-0401 local 5592
 Audio/Video Forensic Section, Tel. +63 (02)723-0401 local 5592
 Cellphone / Mobile Forensic Section, Tel. +63 (02)723-0401 local 5592
 Women and Children Protection Center (ACG – ANGELNET), Tel. +63 (02)723-0401
local 5354
CYBER SECURITY, RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS DIVISION

Tel +63 (02)723-0401 local 5514

 Cyber Security Section


 Research, Analysis Section
 Production Section
 Cyber Terror Response Team
 Technical Section
PNP ANTI-CYBERCRIME FIELD UNITS

Northern Luzon (AOR: PR01, PRO2, PR03, PROCAR)

Chief, NLFU: 09985988110

 La Union: Camp Florendo, San Fernando City


 Pampanga: Camp Olivas, City of San Fernando Tel. 09165342246

Chief, RACO3: 09985988102

Southern Luzon (AOR: PRO4A, PRO4B, PRO5)

Chief, SLFU: 09985988112

 Laguna: Camp Vicente Lim, Calamba City Tel: 09208322538

Chief, RACO4A: 09985988103

 Bicol c/o 5RCIDU, Camp Simeon Ola, Legaspi City, Albay, Tel.+63 (052)820-6476

Chief, RACO5: 09985988104

Visayas (AOR: PRO6, PRO7, PRO8, PRO18)

Chief, VFU: 09985988113

 Cebu PPO Compound, Gaisano St., Sudlon, Lahug, Cebu City, Tel. +63 (032)505-4167

Chief, RACO7: 09985988105

Western Mindanao (AOR: PRO9, PRO12, PROARMM)

Chief, WMFU: 09985988114

 General Santos c/o 12RCIDU, Camp Lira, General Santos City, Tel. +63 (062)992-5012

Chief, RACO12: 09985988109

 Zamboanga c/o 9RCIDU, Camp Gen Eduardo Batalla, Justice RT Lim Blvd.,
Zamboanga City, Tel. +63 (083)552-4892

Chief, RACO9: 09985988106

Eastern Mindanao (AOR: PRO10, PRO11, PRO13)


Chief, EMFU: 09985988115

 Cagayan De Oro: Camp Alagar, Cagayan De Oro City, Tel: 09065720685

Chief, RACO10: 09985988107

 Davao c/o 11RCIDU, Camp Leonor, San Pedro St., Davao City, Tel.+63 (082)224-5601

Chief, RACO11: 09985988108

https://pnpacg.ph/main/index.php/contacts

You might also like