Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
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.
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.
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)
(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)
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.
(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.
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.
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.
http://digitalfilipino.com/introduction-cybercrime-prevention-act-republic-act-10175/
OFFICE ADDRESS:
CONTACT NUMBERS:
Social Media
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/anticybercrimegroup
Twitter:
Email
pnp.anticybercrimegroup@gmail.com
infoacg@pnp.gov.ph
OFFICE DIRECTORY
DEPUTY CHIEF
CHIEF OF STAFF
Bicol c/o 5RCIDU, Camp Simeon Ola, Legaspi City, Albay, Tel.+63 (052)820-6476
Cebu PPO Compound, Gaisano St., Sudlon, Lahug, Cebu City, Tel. +63 (032)505-4167
General Santos c/o 12RCIDU, Camp Lira, General Santos City, Tel. +63 (062)992-5012
Zamboanga c/o 9RCIDU, Camp Gen Eduardo Batalla, Justice RT Lim Blvd.,
Zamboanga City, Tel. +63 (083)552-4892
Davao c/o 11RCIDU, Camp Leonor, San Pedro St., Davao City, Tel.+63 (082)224-5601
https://pnpacg.ph/main/index.php/contacts