Internet users, journalists and government officials protests on several sections of the recently passed Cybercrimes Prevention Act as unconstitutional and that it infringes on the right to freedom of speech.
Section 4, paragraph 4 which states that libel is a cybercrime if committed online; Section 5, which punishes any person who aids or abets the commission of any cybercrime, even if it is only through Facebook or Twitter; Section 6 which adopts the entire Penal Code for as long as the crime is committed through the use of information technology, but the penalty would be one degree higher; Section 7 which makes the same crime punishable both under the Penal Code and the Cybercrime Act; and Section 19 which authorizes the Department of Justice (DOJ) to restrict access to computer data found to be in violation of the new law or the so-called take down clause.
Republic Act No. 10175 Section 4, paragraph 4– (Libel);The 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.
Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code defines libel as “The public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person…”
According to protesters, any Filipino citizen who happens to use social media such as Facebook or Twitter to share opinions against anyone can be sued for libel Those who play a part in unwittingly or willfully encouraging the spread of libelous content (likes, share) shall be charged for abetting libel Any victim of a cybercrime could argue in court that old libelous posts that are still live today can be charged with online libel
The law says, if you can’t say anything good, then you better not say anything at all
For the CPA Common Against the CPA Government stands firm • Laws that protect citizens • Internet users protests on its decision to pass against fraud, cyber bullying against certain sections of the law. States that it is and sex crimes needed the law as unconstitutional needed and that libel is such as the section on libel. libel
The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order on Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 The temporary restraining order stops law enforcement agencies such as the Department of Justice, the National Bureau of Investigation and even the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) from implementing the assailed provisions of the controversial law. The Philippine Supreme Court has received a total of 15 petitions questioning several provisions of Republic Act 10175 including the one on online libel and the real-time collection of data.
It’s very clear that there should be a law that protects us from crimes committed online however not at the expense of abridging the freedom of speech Some sections of the law need to be amended and carefully specified. The current law is vague and the purpose of having it misinterpreted Law makers should acknowledge that the law was not carefully created and that it needs more work and hackers should refrain from attacking government websites as it does not really help in resolving the situation at all.