Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, officially recorded as Republic Act No. 10175, is a law in the Philippines approved on 12 September 2012. It aims to address legal issues concerning online interactions and the Internet in the Philippines. Among the cybercrime offenses included in the bill are cybersquatting, cybersex, child pornography, identity theft, illegal access to data andlibel.[1]

Screenshot of the social networking site Facebook, as the Filipinos changed their profile pictures into black in protest against the Cybercrime Prevention Law of 2012

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 in freedom of expression.
Contents
[hide]

1 History 2 Provisions 3 Reactions 4 Petitions to the Supreme Court 5 See also 6 References 7 External links

[edit]History

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is the first law in the Philippines which specifically criminalizes computer 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[2]) 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 ILOVEYOU computer worm, was ultimately not prosecuted by Philippine authorities due to a lack of legal basis for him to be charged under existing Philippine laws at the time of his arrest.[3] Although several cybercrime-related bills were filed in the 14th and 15th Congress, the Cybercrime Prevention Act in its current form is the product of House Bill No. 5808, authored by Representative Susan Yap-Sulit of the second district of Tarlac and 36 other co-authors, and Senate Bill No. 2976, proposed by Senator Edgardo Angara. Both bills were passed by their respective chambers within one day of each other on June 5 and 4, 2012, respectively, shortly after the impeachment of Renato Corona, and the final version of the Act was later signed into law by President Benigno Aquino III on September 12, 2012.

[edit]Provisions
The Act, divided into 31 sections split across eight chapters, criminalizes several types of offenses, including illegal access (hacking), data interference, device misuse, cybersquatting, computer-related offenses such as computer fraud, content-related offenses such as cybersex and spam, and other offenses. The law also reaffirms existing laws against child pornography, an offense under Republic Act No. 9779 (the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009), and libel, an offense under Section 355 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, also criminalizing them when committed using a computer system. Finally, the Act provides for a "catch-all" clause, wherein all offenses currently punishable under the Revised Penal Code are likewise punishable under the Act when committed using a computer, with corresponding stricter penalties than if the crimes were punishable under the Revised Penal Code alone. The Act has universal 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 the Department 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 during Senate deliberations on May 31, 2012.[4]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 the National Bureau of Investigation and the Philippine 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. It also mandates the establishment of special "cybercrime courts" which will handle cases involving cybercrime offenses (offenses enumerated in Section 4(a) of the Act).

[edit]Reactions
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 and data security in the Philippines. The local 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.[5] Media organizations and legal institutions though have criticized the Act for extending the definition of libel as defined in the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, which has been criticized by international organizations as being outdated:[6] the United Nations for one has remarked that the current definition of libel as defined in the Revised Penal Code is inconsistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and therefore violates the respect of freedom of expression.[7] Senator Edgardo 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.[8] He also added that the new law is unlike the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act.[9] However, Senator Teofisto Guingona III criticized the bill, calling it a prior restraint to the freedom of speech and freedom of expression.[10] The Electronic Frontier Foundation has also expressed concern about the Act,[11] supporting local media and journalist groups which are opposed to it.

[edit]Petitions

to the Supreme Court

Several petitions have been submitted to the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of the Act.
[12]

However, on October 2, the Supreme Court deferred on acting on the petitions, citing the absence of

justices which prevented the Court from sitting en banc.[13] The lack of a temporary restraining order meant that the law went into effect as scheduled on October 3. In protest, Filipino netizens reacted by blacking out their Facebook profile pictures and trending the hashtag #notocybercrimelaw on Twitter. Anonymous also

defaced government websites, including those of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System and the Intellectual Property Office. On October 9, 2012, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order, stopping implementation of the Act for 120 days.[14]

Petitioner

Date of Filling

1 Sen. Teofisto Guingona III

2 Group of lawyers from the Ateneo School of Law

3 Journalists led by Alab ng Mamahayag (ALAM)

September 24, 2012

4 Kabataan party-list Rep. Raymond Palatino

5 National Artist Bienvenido Lumbera et al.

6 Technology law experts led by UP Law professor JJ Disini

7 Louis Biraogo

September 25, 2012

National Union of Journalists of the Philippines and the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility

Bloggers and Netizens for Democracy (BAND) led by Tonyo Cruz, "The Professional Heckler and 18 more bloggers

October 4, 2012

1 Philippine Bar Association 0

1 Paul Cornelius Castillo and Ryan Andres 1

October 3, 2012

1 Bayan Muna. Rep. Neri Colmenares 2

1 National Press Club 3

1 Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance 4

1 Harry Roque et al. 5 [edit]See

also

Philippines portal

Intellectual property protection in the Philippines Philippine copyright law Revised Penal Code of the Philippines Cyberbullying

[edit]References

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

^ Gonzales, JR Lopez (1 October 2012). "Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012: A Cyber 'Martial

Law'?". PoliTikalon: The Official Weblog of JR Lopez Gonzales. Retrieved 2 October 2012. ^ Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 (Republic Act No. 8792) ^ Arnold, Wayne (22 August 2000). "Technology; Philippines to Drop Charges on E-Mail

Virus". The New York Times. Retrieved 3 October 2012. ^ Reyes, Karl John C. (2 October 2012). "Senate inserted Section 19: How the 'take-down' clause

emerged in Cybercrime Law". TV5 News and Information. Retrieved 3 October 2012. ^ Agcaoili, Lawrence (20 September 2012). "IT-BPO industry welcomes passage of Cybercrime

Prevention Act". The Philippine Star. Retrieved 24 September 2012. ^ Panela, Shaira (19 September 2012). "Cybercrime Act extends reach of 'draconian', outdated

libel laws". GMA News and Public Affairs. Retrieved 24 September 2012. ^ Tiongson, Frank Lloyd (30 January 2012). "Libel law violates freedom of expression UN rights

panel". The Manila Times. Retrieved 24 September 2012.

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

^ Sy, Marvin (23 September 2012). "'Give Cybercrime Prevention Act a chance'". The Philippine

Star. Retrieved 24 September 2012. ^ Angara, Edgardo. "Protecting our Cyberspace - The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012".

EdAngara.com. Retrieved 24 September 2012. ^ Mendes, Christina (22 September 2012). "Guingona criticizes Cybercrime Prevention Act". The

Philippine Star. Retrieved 25 September 2012. ^ "Philippines' New Cybercrime Prevention Act Troubling for Free Expression". Electronic Frontier

Foundation. Retrieved 1 October 2012. ^ Canlas, Jonas (27 September 2012). "Suits pile up assailing anti-cybercrime law". The Manila

Times. Retrieved 27 September 2012. ^ Torres, Tetch (2 October 2012). "SC defers action on petitions vs cybercrime law". Philippine

Daily Inquirer. Retrieved 2 October 2012. ^ Torres, Tetch (9 October 2012). "SC issues TRO vs cyber law". Philippine Daily

Inquirer (Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc.). Retrieved 9 October 2012.

[edit]External

links

"AN ACT DEFINING CYBERCRIME, PROVIDING FOR THE PREVENTION, INVESTIGATION,

SUPPRESSION AND THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES". Office of the President of the Philippines Official Gazette. Retrieved 24 September 2012.