Philippine Cybercrime Law

[Call me bubba]

here is the latest on the "cyber-law"

now  it appears that it could not be enforced any way as it is "defective".. :89:  

 

now here is the story //

 

With all the oral arguments on the suits challenging the
constitutionality of the fledgling Cybercrime Prevention Act (Rep. Act
No. 10175) completed before the Supreme Court (SC) yesterday, the
counsels representing the State had to concede that portions of the
draconian law should be struck out.
The government yesterday admitted
before the SC that liking, sharing libelous Facebook and twitter posts
can make one person criminally liable, which made a Supreme Court
Justice to say that it creates a chilling effect.
Solicitor General
Francis Jardeleza who represented the government said that under the
said law   clicking “like,” “share” or “retweet” on  posts on social
networking sites Facebook and Twitter can make one liable.
“A ‘like’
is an approval of opinion. The approval of the opinion ‘Jones is a liar’
can cause as much damage as actually saying ‘Jones is a liar,”
Jardeleza told SC magistrates in oral argument as he defended the
legality of the cybercrime law.
“If ‘liking’ a post considered
libelous is also libelous, then this law is bad. It can have chilling
effect for those of us who like opinions which we didn’t author in the
first place,” stressed Associate Justice Roberto Abad.
Jardeleza also said that R.A. 10175 treats approval of a post punishable as cyber libel as a similar crime:
“Defamation is defamation. Things (in the Internet) can go viral. What about reputation?”

 

(here is the reason )
Jardeleza
conceded that Section 19 of the law, which authorizes the Department of
justice to blocked or restrict access to computer data without a court
warrant, is unconstitutional.
“We humbly submit that Section 19 be
struck down as it impermissibly intrudes into free speech. We too
believe in freedom of speech and expression,” he stressed.

 

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,................................................................
Jardeleza
also admitted  in open court that  collection of traffic data under
Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act would include
collection of electronic banking transactions.
“Would the collection
of traffic data also include electronic banking transactions,” Supreme
Court Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo asked Jardeleza, to which
the Solicitor-General replied in the positive.
“Won’t this be a violation of the Bank Secrecy Law?”, asked Del Castillo.
The government lawyer said no because the provision is about “hot pursuit of a hacker.”
Del
Castillo pointed out that  Congress failed to define what is traffic
data that can be collected without intervention from the courts.

Jardeleza clamed he was clueless on that, even when he was arguing for its inclusion.
Under
Section 12, traffic data “refers only to the communication’s origin,
destination, route, time, date, size, duration or type of underlying
service but not content nor identities.”
The same provision allows law enforcement authorities to collect these traffic data without need of court authorization.
The Justice said that the executive department’s “power to collect traffic data is subject to abuse.
Jardeleza
also  admitted that Section 12 of the law is also “hardly
constitutional” as he called as “one of the misgivings” the clause on
“due cause” – a criminal element not clarified in this provision that
gives government power to collect real-time traffic data.
“Traffic
data can be acquired if there is due cause, which is function of the
executive (branch). Rights will be better protected with judicial
intervention,” he conceded.
Senior Justices Antonio Carpio said a
libel provision in Sec. 354 of Revised Penal Code from where online
libel was taken has  been declared unconstitutional by previous SC
rulings.
“Article 354 on libel cannot stand scrutiny of constitutionality,” he told Jardeleza.
Associate
Justice Bienvenido Reyes grilled the Solicitor general on the possible
repercussion of his stand to the fight against child pornography, which
needs immediate action from law enforcers.
Associate Justice Marvic
Leonen, the most junior of the justices, shared this opinion. He asked
Jardeleza:  “Jurisprudence on actual malice has amended the Revised
Penal Code. Why is it in the cybercrime law, libel repeats Article 355
and not the jurisprudence? The libel of 1932 is not the libel we know
today.”
Leonen asked if the SC can declare the online libel provision
unconstitutional also just like the libel provision in RPC. Jardeleza
said it would be “up to the court.”
While Jardeleza admitted there
are questionable provisions in R.A. 10175, the government is hopeful the
high court would not declare the entire law unconstitutional.
So he demonstrated the necessity for a law against cybercriminals he personified as “Mr. Hacker.”
“Internet
gave criminals platform to commit crimes. The cybercrime law is the
state’s response to scourge… Cybercrime law gives government new tools
to run after anonymous cybercriminals who do not carry guns but as
deadly,” he argued.
He assured that the law provides three layers of
protection against cybercriminals like hackers, two of which involve
judicial intervention.
Jardeleza also allayed fears that R.A. 10175
would lead to intrusion of privacy of citizens. He assured it “does not
authorize ‘Big Brother surveillance.”

 

 

http://www.tribune.net.ph/headlines/item/9835-solgen-admits-cyber-law-defective-unconstitutional

 

humm??  a law was made.w/some of the "brightest minds" in the country. and the law to begin with is already "defective" and others didnt really know what the "law" was as they didnt read it .yet voted for passage.. 

:89: :89:

. being a genius its still more fun in the philppines

[Thomas]

Just wondering if there's been much feedback there in Cebu regarding the Philippines new Cybercrime Law ? Folks in our neck of the woods , Northern Mindanao - Cagayan de Oro , are perhaps over reacting but mainly Facebookers . :-) Would seem to be a step backward for the Philippines in terms of the international community but given the fact that a significent number of folks that passed the bill apparently didn't bother to read it guess it's not suprising :-)

http://www.philstar.com/nation/article.aspx?publicationsubcategoryid=200&articleid=853745

Above link provides one view but there are many..

I can't see that article. Perhaps it's cencored...  :)