Tro Granted,court Suspends Cyber-Prevention Act

[Call me bubba]

Seems that theSupreme *Court after a few weeks of TRO'S being filed , the have decided to issue a TRO against the new CYBER PREVENTION ACT of 2012 :565:

(*no relation to the music group of the 60's The Supremes)

here is the story from BBC news

The Philippines' top court has temporarily suspended a controversial law targeting cybercrime, following protests by critics who say it stifles free speech.

The new law, called the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, came into effect earlier this month.

It is intended to prevent cybersex, online child pornography, identity theft and spamming, officials say.

But it also makes libel a cybercrime punishable by up to 12 years in jail.

The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order preventing the act from being enforced after 15 petitions questioning its legality were filed.

Local reports say an 120-day suspension is in place.

The government says the law is intended to address "legitimate concerns" about criminal and abusive behaviour online.

But protesters say the legislation could be used to target government critics and crack down on freedom of speech.

Under the new act, a person found guilty of libellous comments online, including comments made on social networks such as Facebook and Twitter or blogs, could be fined or jailed.

Government officials will also have new powers to search and seize data from people's online accounts.

The law has generated a number of protests - anonymous activists have hacked into government websites and journalists have held rallies.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...d-asia-19881346

the story below is the 3rd update from PHILSTAR online

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the implementation of the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

The SC magistrates unanimously voted for the issuance of the TRO.

Fifteen petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of the new cyber law, which President Benigno Aquino III signed last September 12.

The TRO's issuance came as the Department of Justice (DOJ) was holding a cybercrime forum in its office in Manila.

At the forum, DOJ Assistant Secretary Geronimo Sy said that the law will not target bloggers and social media users. He said what the law is seeking to after are the "most pernicious" crimes.

Sy also said that the DOJ is uninterested in personal communications among social media users, belying claims that the law would hamper free speech on the internet.

He added that the DOJ would not allow any politician to use the law to get back at his critics.

First cyber case

Sy said that the first case filed before the DOJ under the new law involves the sex video of a 17-year-old girl, who was first abused when she was 15.

"The video is all over the internet. The permanence is there. She can no longer face anyone. Can we stop the videos? No.

What we can do is to provide counselling to the woman, change her identity and to have her relocated. This case validated 10 years of work of frustration.

So long as we can help one Filipino and one vulnerable [person, this is worth it]," Sy said.

Meanwhile, Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, in a statement posted in her website

said she predicts that the SC will "strike down Cybercrime Act as unconstitutional."

"In my humble opinion, the law as presently worded is unconstitutional.

"The Cybercrime Act is a law that dangerously limits the growth of the marketplace of ideas.

Therefore, it is presumed to be unconstitutional. But in addition, the law is unconstitutional, because it uses language that is overbroad, and language that is too vague.

In other words, it violates the overbreadth doctrine and the void for vagueness doctrine in constitutional law," she added.

First victory

Senator Teofisto Guingona, one of the petitioners of the new law, said that the SC's unanimous decision on the issuance of the TRO "is a strong message of its belief that the dangers and fears of the people are real and must be addressed."

"A TRO against the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is the first victory of the people and of freedom of expression... With this TRO, the tyrannical powers granted by the law are effectively clipped. However, the fight is not over," Guingona said.

Guingona and the other petitions particularly questioned the new cyber law's provision on online libel.

The Human Rights Watch, meanwhile, urged the high court to "strike down" the new cyber law.

“We commend the Philippines Supreme Court for issuing a temporary restraining order against the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

The court should now go further by striking down this seriously flawed law," the group said in a statement.

It added: “Congress, if it still wants to have a law governing online activity, should ensure that such a law will not infringe on civil liberties, human rights, the Constitution and the Philippines’s obligations under international law."

http://www.philstar....rticleid=857646

Edited October 9, 2012 by Pittman apartments Sgn

[earthdome]

This is good news. There was a great deal of media coverage about this new law in both newspapers and TV while I was there the last 2 weeks.

[Old55]

This is good news. There was a great deal of media coverage about this new law in both newspapers and TV while I was there the last 2 weeks.

NPR did a news piece on the story this morning.

[ibemarshall]

Lots' of good ol' media sunshine on this bill...you think there might be some hope in doing the Elvis Presley to it ("Return to Sender")?

[i am bob]

The basic premise of the law was good, just what they instituted was over-kill and also against the Philippine constitution... In other words, they went too far and put in things that would protect themselves personally and politically. After all the uproar over this, I'm pretty sure that they will next deliver a fairly reasonable bill that the Supreme Court will probably edit first to ensure that it is a just bill. Even in a land where many politicians are in it for themselves, ya gotta have faith!!!

:tiphat:

[earthdome]

The opposition to portions of this bill was organized by people on the internet, much of it using social media.

The internet can be a great tool for freedom, it has had a greater impact for human freedom than the invention of the printing press. That is why I oppose any legislation governments want to pass to "protect people" on the internet. The end result will always be laws to protect the government from the people and limit their use of the internet to organize opposition to corrupt, oppressive or tyrannical government.

[i am bob]

I am in favour of censoring the internet. but only in the strictest sense in material dealing with actual abuse, rape and hate-mongering. I'm not talking about play acting that you would see on a sex site or in a story but the actual event. And I've seen too many people die because of someone spewing their message of hate. The only other thing I would like to see as a crime regarding the internet is malicious hacking. That would be where a person, business, entity or even a country / government is hacked to damage it in any way, shape or form. To me? That is just a cowards' way!

:tiphat:

[Call me bubba]

here is another news story about the TRO issued and lists some of the "provisions" that the law has

and being questioned about the "legality" of it

MANILA, Philippines–The Supreme Court stopped for 120 days the implementation of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

At the same time, the high court has set an oral argument on January 15 to hear both parties for and against the law.

In a 13-page ruling, the high court consolidated all the 15 petitions against the Cybercrime Law.

“Now, therefore, effective immediately and for a period of 120 days, you, respondents, your agents, representatives or persons acting in your place or stead are hereby enjoined from implementing and/on enforcing Republic Act 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012),” the high court resolution dated Oct. 9 stated.

At the same time, it ordered the government’s lawyer, the Solicitor General to comment within 10 days on the petitions filed against the law.

The high court also set the case for oral argument on Jan. 15 at 2pm.

In the 15 separate petitions, these are the provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Law that are being questioned before the high court;

Sec. 4©(4), which criminalizes libel, not only on the internet, but also on “any other similar means which may be devised in the future;”

Sec. 5 (b), which punishes those who attempt, aide or abet the commission of a cyber offense;

Sec. 6, which raises by one degree higher the penalties provided for by the Revised Penal Code for all crimes committed through and with the use of information and communications;

Sec. 7, which provides that, apart from prosecution under the law, any person charged for the alleged offense covered will not be spared from violations of the Revised Penal Code and other special laws;

Sec. 8, penalties corresponding Section 5 (b)

Sec. 11 which lists duties of law enforcement authorities, including the submissions of “timely and regular reports including pre-operation, post-operation and investigation results and such other documents as may be required to the DoJ;

Sec. 12, which authorizes the real-time collection of traffic data;

Sec. 13, authorizes law enforcement authorities to collect or record, by technical or electronic means, traffic data in real-time;

Sec. 15, authorizes law enforcement authorities to search, seize and examine computer data;

Sec. 17, which authorizes service providers and law enforcement agencies to “completely destroy the computer data subject of a preservation and examination” order;

Sec. 19, which authorizes the DOJ to block access to computer data when such data “is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act;” and

Sec. 20, which states that those who fail to comply with provisions of Chapter IV (Enforcement and Implementation), specifically orders from law enforcement agencies, shall face imprisonment of prision correctional (6 months and 1 day to 6 years) in its maximum period or a fine of P100,000 or both, for each noncompliance;

Sec. 21, which states the jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts (RTC) and designated cybercrime courts over violations of any of the provisions of the law; and

Sec. 22 pertaining to international cooperation from all relevant international instruments, international arrangements, and domestic laws in the implementation of RA 10175.

Petitioners said the law violates the public’s constitutional rights including right to due process, equal protection, freedom of speech, right to privacy, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, protection against double jeopardy, among others.

“Indeed, the Internet is not evil per se, but the statute in question views cyberspace as inherently evil and treats those who use it in violation of a rule with unjust discrimination by providing a penalty higher than an act committed without the use of an internet,” one of the petition stated.

The law is envisioned as a measure against hacking, identity theft, spamming, cybersex and online child pornography. But citizens and groups who protested on social networking sites, blogs and out in the streets fear politicians will use it to silence critics.

The law contains a provision that says libel — which is already punishable by up to six years in prison — is also a cybercrime. It doubles cumulative penalties for online offenses and allows government agencies to search, seize and destroy computer data deemed libelous.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/285848/sc-stops-cyber-law