2 more petitions filed vs anti-cybercrime law

MANILA — Two more petitions questioning the constitutionality of Republic Act (RA) 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act were filed Monday at the Supreme Court (SC), bringing the number of filed petitions to seven.
The sixth petition was filed by a group led by the Kabataan party-list, while the seventh petition was filed by a group composed of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), national artist Bienvenido Lumbrera, Kilusang Mayo Uno, Karapatan, Courage, Anakpawis and Gabriela.
Similar to earlier petitions, petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 19 and 20 of the law. Section 4(c) 4 provides the definition of Internet libel, while Section 5 deals with aiding, abetting or attempting the commission of cybercrime.
Sections 6 and 7 provide for penalties for violations of traditional crimes committed using information communication technology and the relationship with existing crimes.
Section 19 allows the restriction or blocking access to computer data found to be in violation of the law, while Section 20 penalizes failure to comply with orders from law enforcement authorities.
In their petition, Kabataan Representatives Raymond Palatino and Antonio Tinio asked the High Court to issue writs of prohibition and mandamus against respondents Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa and Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, enjoining them from implementing the cybercrime law for being “void, vague and overbreadth.”
Palatino said he will also file a bill at the House of Representatives calling for the repeal of RA 10175, for it to be replaced by the “Internet Freedom Act of 2012.”
Palatino’s proposed measure will enumerate the rights of netizens, the supposed target of the controversial Cybercrime Law, which penalizes online libel.
“If we analyze the Cybercrime Law, it is apparent that it restricts rather than protect netizens. Apart from repealing RA 10175 through the Internet Freedom Bill, we intend to lay down the inalienable rights of Filipino Internet users,” Palatino said.
Palatino noted that Internet access and online freedom of expression was recently added by the United Nations Human Rights Council to the list of basic human rights.
“With the Internet Freedom Bill, we seek to assert this right, and ensure that the Internet is free from censorship and totalitarian suppression,” the lawmaker said.
Senator Francis Escudero earlier said he will file a similar measure in the Senate to remove several provisions in the Cybercrime Law.
Aside from Palatino, other petitioners were Vencer Crisostomo of militant group Anakbayan, Ma. Katherine Elona of Philippine Collegian, Isabelle Baguisi of the National Union of Students of the Philippines.
Kabataan said the order of blocking or restricting access to computer data may infringe upon legitimate and protected acts and speech – taken down without the benefit of due process, notice and hearing.
“The prospect of news websites, political blogs and online commentaries summarily taken down based on a prima facie finding of a violation of a computer data is all too real under this provision. As a result, the DOJ (Department of Justice) becomes an all-too-powerful body, which can impose prior restraint and subsequent punishment upon protected speech on the mere guise of restricting or blocking access to computer data,” the group said.
The Bayan group, meanwhile, impleaded President Benigno Aquino III as respondent in their petition, along with Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Executive Secretary Ochoa, Justice Secretary de Lima, Louis Napoleon Casambre (executive director of the Information and Communications Technology Office), NBI Director Nonnatus Rojas, Philippine National Police Chief Nicanor Bartolome, and Local Government Secretary Manuel Roxas II.
Meantime, before the controversial anti-cybercrime law was passed, Justice Secretary de Lima already expressed opposition to the provision on Internet libel, but her effort to strike it out was thwarted by Malacañang.
Speaking to reporters in an ambush interview on Monday, de Lima said that she had submitted a position paper to the Palace, which questioned why the authors of RA 10175 had inserted the provision on libel.
Her position paper, however, was disregarded by Malacañang when President Aquino signed the measure into law last September 12.
Under Section 19 of RA 10175, the Secretary of Justice is given blanket authority to restrict or block access to computer data that would be found having prima facie evidence of violation of the cybercrime law.
Opponents of the law, however, claimed this provision arrogates upon the DOJ Secretary the functions of the courts.
“I know there are objectionable portions and may I state, for the record, na hindi sa amin nanggaling ang mga provisions na yun (the questionable provisions did not come from us),” she said.
“In fact, our position papers will show that we have actually questioned all that. Authors of law should explain why these portions are there. Against kasi ang mga provisions na ‘yun (those provisions are against the rights to freedom of expression and speech). We manifested that position but that was before the law became a law,” she added.
A statement given by the DOJ to reporters Monday afternoon quoted de Lima as stating that since 2007, when the DOJ first crafted the consolidated cybercrime bill, Internet libel was never part of any versions, and the main purpose of the legislation was to cover acts committed with new technologies that were not included or could not have been anticipated by the Revised Penal Code or special penal laws.
“The DOJ recommended the deletion of cyber defamation, cyber threats and internet libel. Moreover, we strongly pointed out that it is a penal legislation but the law confuses cybercrime and cyber security – two different concepts. The creation of a new bureaucratic structure that cannot be responsible for operations will impede the successful implementation of the law,” de Lima said.
She said that since the cybercrime bill has already been passed into law, the DOJ has no other alternative but to implement it, unless struck down by the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional or appropriate amendments are introduced in the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) to clarify the ambiguous provisions.
“As I said, duty ng executive na mag-implement (it is the Executive Department’s duty to implement the law). But I think we need to craft muna (first) the appropriate rules and regulations. DOJ is tasked to implement the IRR. The IRR cannot go beyond or against the provisions of the law,” she said.
To do that, de Lima said she will create an “office” composed of 100 fiscals who will train in cyber-forensics, and who will prosecute offenses related to cyberspace.
The DOJ is also set to conduct a multi-sectoral forum on October 9 with key stakeholders to address issues and concerns in the implementation of the law.
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila/local-news/2012/10/01/2-more-petitions-filed-vs-anti-cybercrime-law-245836