| Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Congress of the Philippines | |
| |
| Citation | Republic Act 10175 |
| Territorial extent | Philippines |
| Enacted by | House of Representatives |
| Enacted by | Senate |
| Signed by | Benigno Aquino III |
| Signed | September 12, 2012 |
| Commenced | October 3, 2012[note 1] |
| Legislative history | |
| First chamber:House of Representatives | |
| Bill title | Same title as final law |
| Bill citation | House Bill 5808[note 2] |
| Introduced by | Susan Yap (Tarlac 2nd District) |
| Introduced | February 9, 2012 |
| First reading | February 13, 2012 |
| Second reading | May 9, 2012 |
| Third reading | May 21, 2012 |
| Committee report | Joint Explanation of the Conference Committee: 1323–1327 |
| Second chamber:Senate | |
| Bill title | Same title as final law |
| Bill citation | Senate Bill 2796 |
| Received from theHouse of Representatives | May 3, 2011 |
| Member(s) in charge | Edgardo Angara |
| First reading | June 27, 2011 |
| Second reading | June 30, 2011 |
| Third reading | July 10, 2011 |
| Final stages | |
| Reported fromconference committee | May 30, 2012 |
| Conference committee bill passed byHouse of Representatives | June 4, 2012 |
| Conference committee bill passed bySenate | June 26, 2011 |
| Status: In force | |
TheCybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, officially recorded asRepublic Act No. 10175, is alaw in thePhilippines that was approved by PresidentBenigno Aquino III on September 12, 2012. It aims to address legal issues concerning online interactions and theInternet in the Philippines. Among the cybercrime offenses included in the bill arecybersquatting,cybersex,child pornography,identity theft, illegal access to data andlibel.[1]
While hailed for penalizing illegal acts done via the Internet that were not covered by old laws, the act has been criticized for its provision on criminalizing libel, which is perceived to be a curtailment of thefreedom of expression—"cyberauthoritarianism".[2] Its use against journalists likeMaria Ressa, ofRappler, has drawn international condemnation.[3][4]
On October 9, 2012, theSupreme Court of the Philippines issued a temporary restraining order, stopping implementation of the Act for 120 days, and extended it on February 5, 2013 "until further orders from the court."[5][6]
On February 18, 2014, the Supreme Court upheld most of the sections of the law, including the controversial cyberlibel component.[7][note 1]
The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is one of the first laws in the Philippines which specifically criminalizescomputer crime, which prior to the passage of the law had no strong legal precedent in Philippine jurisprudence. While laws such as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 (Republic Act No. 8792)[8] regulated certain computer-related activities, these laws did not provide a legal basis for criminalizing crimes committed on a computer in general: for example, Onel De Guzman, the computer programmer charged with purportedly writing the ILOVEYOUcomputer worm, was ultimately not prosecuted by Philippine authorities due to lack of legal basis to charge him under existing Philippine laws at the time of his arrest.[9]
The first drafts of the Anti-Cybercrime and Data Privacy Acts started in 2001 under the Legal and Regulatory Committee of the former Information Technology and eCommerce Council ([ITECC) which is the forerunner of the Commission on Information and Communication Technology (CICT) and now theDepartment of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) It was headed by former Secretary Virgilio "Ver" Peña, with the Legal and Regulatory Committee chaired by Atty. Claro Parlade. The creation of the laws was an initiative of the Information Security and Privacy Sub-Committee chaired by Albert P. dela Cruz who was then president of the Philippine Computer Emergency Response Team (PHCERT), together with Anti-Computer Crime and Fraud Division (ACCFD) Chief, Elfren Meneses of theNational Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The administrative and operational functions was provided by the Presidential Management Staff (PMS) acting as the CICT secretariat.[10] The initial version] of the law was communicated to various other organizations and special interest groups during that time.
This was superseded by several cybercrime-related bills filed in the14th and15th Congress. The Cybercrime Prevention Act ultimately was the product of House Bill No. 5808, authored by RepresentativeSusan Yap-Sulit of thesecond district of Tarlac and 36 other co-authors, and Senate Bill No. 2796, proposed by SenatorEdgardo Angara. Both bills were passed by their respective chambers within one day of each other on June 5 and 4, 2012, respectively, shortly after theimpeachment of Renato Corona, and the final version of the Act was signed into law by PresidentBenigno Aquino III on September 12.
The Act, divided into 31 sections split across eight chapters, criminalizes several types of offense, includingillegal access (hacking),data interference, device misuse,cybersquatting, computer-related offenses such ascomputer fraud, content-related offenses such ascybersex andspam, and other offenses. The law also reaffirms existing laws againstchild pornography, an offense under Republic Act No. 9775 (the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009), andlibel, an offense under Section 355 of theRevised Penal Code of the Philippines, also criminalizing them when committed using a computer system. Finally, the Act includes a "catch-all" clause, making all offenses currently punishable under the Revised Penal Code also punishable under the Act when committed using a computer, with more severe penalties than what was provided by the Revised Penal Code alone.
The Act hasuniversal jurisdiction: its provisions apply to all Filipino nationals regardless of the place of commission. Jurisdiction also lies when a punishable act is either committed within the Philippines, whether the erring device is wholly or partly situated in the Philippines, or whether damage was done to any natural or juridical person who at the time of commission was within the Philippines.Regional Trial Courts shall have jurisdiction over cases involving violations of the Act.
A takedown clause is included in the Act, empowering theDepartment of Justice to restrict and/or demand the removal of content found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, without the need for a court order. This provision, originally not included in earlier iterations of the Act as it was being deliberated through Congress, was inserted duringSenate deliberations on May 31, 2012.[11] Complementary to the takedown clause is a clause mandating the retention of data on computer servers for six months after the date of transaction, which may be extended for another six months should law enforcement authorities request it.
The Act also mandates theNational Bureau of Investigation and thePhilippine National Police to organize a cybercrime unit staffed by special investigators whose responsibility will be to exclusively handle cases pertaining to violations of the Act, under the supervision of the Department of Justice. The unit is empowered to, among others, collect real-time traffic data from Internet service providers with due cause, require the disclosure of computer data within 72 hours after receipt of a court warrant from a service provider, and conduct searches and seizures of computer data and equipment.
The enactment of Republic Act 10867 (The National Bureau of Investigation Reorganization and Modernization Act) empowers the NBI to have the primary jurisdiction in investigating violations of Republic Act 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act 2012).
The new Act received mixed reactions from several sectors upon its enactment, particularly with how its provisions could potentially affect freedom of expression,freedom of speech anddata security in the Philippines.
Thelocal business process outsourcing industry has received the new law well, citing an increase in the confidence of investors due to measures for the protection of electronic devices and online data.[12] Media organizations and legal institutions though have criticized the Act for extending the definition of libel as defined in theRevised Penal Code of the Philippines, which has been criticized by international organizations as being outdated:[13] the United Nations for one has remarked that the current definition of libel as defined in the Revised Penal Code is inconsistent with theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and therefore violates the respect of freedom of expression.[14]
SenatorEdgardo Angara, the main proponent of the Act, defended the law by saying that it is a legal framework to protect freedoms such as the freedom of expression. He asked the Act's critics to wait for the bill's implementing rules and regulations to see if the issues were addressed.[15] He also added that the new law is unlike the controversialStop Online Piracy Act andPROTECT IP Act.[16] However, SenatorTG Guingona criticized the bill, calling it a prior restraint to the freedoms of speech and freedom of expression.[17]
TheElectronic Frontier Foundation has also expressed concern about the Act,[18] supporting local media and journalist groups which are opposed to it. The Centre for Law and Democracy also published a detailed analysis criticizing the law from a freedom of expression perspective.[19]
Malacañang has attempted to distance itself from the law; after the guilty verdict was rendered in theMaria Ressa cyberlibel case, presidential spokesmanHarry Roque blamed President Duterte's predecessor,Noynoy Aquino, for any negative effects of the law.[20]
Several petitions were submitted to theSupreme Court questioning the constitutionality of the Act.[21] On October 2, the Supreme Court initially deferred action on the petitions, citing an absence of justices which prevented the Court from sittingen banc.[22] The initial lack of atemporary restraining order meant that the law went into effect as scheduled on October 3. In protest, Filipino netizens reacted by blacking out theirFacebook profile pictures and trending thehashtag #NoToCybercrimeLaw onTwitter.[23] "Anonymous" also defaced government websites, including those of theBangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, theMetropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System and theIntellectual Property Office.[24]
On October 8, 2012, theSupreme Court decided to issue atemporary restraining order, pausing implementation of the law for 120 days.[25] In early December 2012, the government requested the lifting of the TRO,[26] which was denied.[27] Over four hours oforal arguments by petitioners were heard on January 15, 2013, followed by a three-hour rebuttal by theOffice of the Solicitor General, representing the government, on January 29, 2013.[28] This was the first time in Philippine history that oral arguments were uploaded online by the Supreme Court.[29]
On February 18, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that most of the law was constitutional, although it struck down other provisions, including the ones that violateddouble jeopardy.[7][30][note 1] Notably, likes and "retweets" of libelous content, originally themselves also criminalized as libel under the law, were found to be legal.[30] Only justiceMarvic Leonen dissented from the ruling, writing that he believes the whole idea of criminal libel to be unconstitutional.[31]
Whilemotions for reconsideration were immediately filed by numerous petitioners, including theCenter for Media Freedom and Responsibility, they were all rejected on April 22, 2014.[32][33] However, justiceArturo Brion, who originally wrote a separate concurring opinion, changed his vote to dissent after reconsidering whether it was just to impose higher penalties for cyberlibel than for regular libel.[34]
 | This sectionis written like apersonal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Pleasehelp improve it by rewriting it in anencyclopedic style.(July 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
On May 24, 2013, theDOJ announced they would seek to drop the online libel provisions of the law, as well as other provisions that "are punishable under other laws already", likechild pornography andcybersquatting. The DOJ said it would endorse revising the law to the16th Congress of the Philippines,[35][36] but cyberlibel remains on the books as a crime in the Philippines, and has been charged by DOJ prosecutors multiple times since then.[37] SenatorTito Sotto is primarily responsible for the cyberlibel provision, which he added after social media comments accusing him of plagiarism;[35] he has defended his authorship of the last minute amendment, asking reporters if it was fair that "just because [bloggers] are now accountable under the law, they are angry with me?"[38] While libel had been a crime in the Philippines since theAmerican imperial period, before cyberlibel it had a penalty of minimum or mediumprisión correccional (six months to four years and two months), but now has a penalty ofprisión mayor (six to twelve years).[39][40][1]
Online posts do not need to be public for cases to be filed by the DOJ.[41] As the act has universal jurisdiction, it is not required that an offender commit the offense in the Philippines; the DOJ brought up anOFW caregiver who lived inTaiwan on charges for allegedly "posting nasty and malevolent materials against President Duterte on Facebook".[42] Insults that would be seen[tone] in other countries as minor have led to DOJ prosecutors filing cyberlibel charges: such as "crazy"; "asshole";[43] "senile"; and "incompetent".[44]
Journalists charged with cyberlibel since 2013 includeRamon Tulfo,[45]RJ Nieto,[46] andMaria Ressa.[4]Roman Catholicclergy have also faced cyberlibel charges,[47] as with foreigners, who have also accused others of cyberlibel.[48][49]Duterte's administration has been accused of targeting journalists with the law, in particularRappler.[3] During theBongbong Marcos administration,SMNI and theDaily Tribune also faced cyberlibel complaints from former SenatorAntonio Trillanes and Philippine Consul General in Milan Elmer Cato, respectively.[50][51]
On March 2, 2020, the first guilty verdict in a cyberlibel case was returned against a local politician, Archie Yongco, ofAurora,Zamboanga del Sur.[52] Yongco was found guilty of falsely accusing another local politician ofmurder-for-hire via a Facebook post, which he deleted minutes later, but of which archives were made; the court was unconvinced by his denial that he posted the message, and he was sentenced to eight years in jail and ordered to pay damages of₱610,000 (US$12,175).[52]
AMagna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom wascrowdsourced by Filipino netizens with the intent of, among other things, repealing the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012;[53] it failed to pass.[54] Several organizations continue to fight for the decriminalization of all forms of libel in the Philippines, including theNational Union of Journalists of the Philippines[55] andVera Files.[56]
TheSupreme Court Second Division, in July 2023, ruled that "allegedly libelous" post insocial networking sites may be punished only under the cybercrime law and not under regular libel (Article 355, Revised Penal Code). The case originated from a petition of an individual, convicted in a libel case in connection with aFacebook post made in 2011, who argued that such remarks should not be punishable with the case. Since the post was made a year prior to the passage of the law, the court decided that the accused cannot be charged of libel, emphasizing that without a law, no crime are to be punished.[57]
TheSupreme Court of the Philippines in a judgment byJustice Mario Lopez in G.R. No. 262941 (People v. Luisa Pineda, February 2024) affirmed the lower courts' rulings that found Luisa Pineda guilty of violating theAnti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 and the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 qualified with the use of a computer system (violation of Sections 4(a), (b), and (c) of Republic Act No. (RA) 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009, in relation to Section 4(c)(2) of RA 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012). Pineda was thus sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ofreclusion perpetua, a fine of PHP 2,000,000 and PHP 300,000 in civil damages.[58][59]
Later on, the Court approved another first -- the uploading of the audio recording of the proceedings of the oral arguments of the cases starting with the cases on Cybercrime Law.
In a later signed resolution, the Court denied all the motions for reconsiderationof its decision dated February 18, 2014. (GR No. 203335, GR No. 203299, GR No.203306, GR No. 203359, GR No. 203378, GR No. 203391, GR No. 203407, GR No.203440, GR No. 203453, GR No. 203454, GR No. 203469, GR No. 203501, GR No.203509, GR No. 203515, and GR No. 203518, April 22, 2014)
Media related toCybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 at Wikimedia Commons
