Cyberspace has become the platform of the best and worst things that people can come up with

when they're online. While it's a hotbed of game-changing ideas and artistic expression, it has also turned into a breeding ground for trolls and cyberthugs. That being said, wellmeaning Pinoy lawmakers thought it best to pass Republic Act No. 10175 or The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.But, wait! There's a catch. This very same law that professes to protect us from those who would do us wrong via digital means also threatens to take away our freedom to say what we want. Prior to the filing of a court case for online libel, however, the Department of Justice can declare that there is prima facie evidence of libel in any online information, comment, or video, and can forthwith bar access to the sitewhether a Facebook, twitter, or email account, or a blog or websiteor cause the removal of the offending material. This provision in effect gives the DOJ the power of judge, jury and executioner. The Act is practically a bill of attainderexpressly prohibited by the Constitutionthat punishes without trial. This power, however, does not prevent the DOJ from filing charges in court for the same offense, thus exposing the supposed offender to double jeopardy, or being twice held liable for the same offense. Some lawyers also argue that those who upload material before the effectivity of the law on Oct. 3 could also be liable to libel charges if the material is still online on that date, thus making the Act also an ex-post facto law, or a law that retroactively penalizes an act that was not illegal at the time it was passed. Under the overbreadth doctrine, since the law is so broadly written that it deters free expression, then the Supreme Court will strike it down on its face, because of its chilling effect, said Santiago, who holds a doctorate in juridical science and attended post-doctoral studies on Internet law at Harvard University. She said the SC would rule against the law because of its vague provisions that impose punishment without specifying the punishable act. This, she said, violates due process. The senator cited four specific provisions of Republic Act 10175, which she said were either too broad or too vague. These are 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.