Philippine Supreme Court stops implementation of controversial cyber crime law

Members of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines in Davao City march along Davao City’s main routes downtown to express their opposition to the Cybercrime Prevention Act. Gagged but marching with clenched fists, the media union members vowed to fearlessly deliver news to the people. (Photo by Medel Hernani courtesy of davaotoday.com)

DAVAO CITY (Mindanao Examiner / Oct. 9, 2012) – The Philippines Supreme Court has stopped the implementation of the controversial “Cybercrime Law” following several petitions by media groups and human rights organizations for a temporary restraining order.

“Efforts to stop the implementation of Republic Act 101075, otherwise known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, gave fruit as the Supreme Court finally decided to favor several petitions for a temporary restraining order on the said law,” said Jerry Yap, national chairman of the group called Alab ng Mamamahayag, a party-list aspirant.

PETITIONS

He said the petitions were filed before the Supreme Court along with protest actions by various groups denouncing the inclusion of libel and other provision in the law which according to most are unconstitutional and infringes in the freedom of the press and of expression among other inalienable rights.

Yap expressed relief for the reprieve, saying that this could pave the way for much needed amendments in the law. He said the inclusion of libel in the Cybercrime Law should be declared null and void because based on the list of crimes punishable under Republic Act 101075; the nature of libel is outside the nature of the enumerated subject crimes under the law.

“One big disparity between libel and cybercrimes is that the former is committed by means of publication or making it known to the public while the latter is perpetrated by acts that are in nature hidden. Acts constituting any of the cybercrimes are done secretly as in stealing password, computer hacking or gaining access into computer systems or data, stealing PIN codes of computer data, banks accounts and other records for profit. ”

“On the other hand, libel cannot be committed secretly since it has to be made publicly and one element of such a crime is that it has to be publicized through print or broadcast media,” Yap said.

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch, also praised the Supreme Court for halting the implementation of the Cybercrime Law.

“We commend the Philippines Supreme Court for issuing a temporary restraining order against the Cybercrime Prevention Act. The court should now go further by striking down this seriously flawed law,” he said in a separate statement sent to the regional newspaper Mindanao Examiner.

“Congress, if it still wants to have a law governing online activity, should ensure that such a law will not infringe on civil liberties, human rights, the Constitution and the Philippines’s obligations under international law. All provisions in Philippine law that allow for imprisonment for peaceful expression should be repealed. Congress should also ensure that any discussion on proposed laws be done in a transparent manner,” Adams said.

MEDIA PROTEST CONTINUE

Members of the media watchdog National Union of Journalists of the Philippines in Davao City also staged a rally to dramatize their protest against the Cybercrime Law.

“Once again, the powers that be are gagging our fundamental freedoms of speech, expression and the press this time with the Cybercrime Prevention Act. Even with the protests and petitions to the Supreme Court from netizens, journalists and civil society against this Act, the Aquino administration insists that this Act will pursue online criminal acts and not attack our freedom,” the NUJP said in a statement.

It said the law essentially would tend to give liberty for the powerful to tag the freedom of citizens speaking out their opinions and views online as a criminal act. “It basically says that people who post online criticisms on public officials or on institutions and anyone who agree on such comments will face the consequences. The consequences in this case are a libel suit, a jail term, and having one’s website or online accounts pulled down by authorities,” it said.

NUJP said with the Cybercrime Act, those in power can silence their critics by slapping them with online libel. Just like politicians using libel against journalists, they can and will use this Act to attack citizens.

“This only reflects an administration that does not tolerate dissent. It also enforces the reality that repression, which is happening with the deprivation of our right to social services, housing and education, is happening to us online. It shows that Aquino is now the bully as he defies his boss, the people.”

“Thus, the right to express our criticisms becomes vital more than ever. Media, traditional and new ones, serve as the outline of the peoples’ assertion of their rights. As the Supreme Court sits en banc today, we demand that our petitions are heard; we assert that no law should be made to stifle such freedom. As we see an iron-fist rule coming, we face this by coming out on the streets, on media and online with the urgent call to defy it,” it said.

OFWs, RIGHTS GROUPS JOIN FIGHT

The Filipino migrants’ rights group, Migrante-Middle East, which is actively involved in protesting the implementation of the controversial law to protect overseas Filipino workers from the harsh provision of the Cybercrime Prevention Act, also lauded the High Court’s decision, but vowed to continue for the repeal of the Republic Act 101075.

“We congratulate all overseas Filipino workers online and onsite, who have joined our fight versus the Cybercrime Law, as the Supreme Court today issued a Temporary Restraining Order halting the implementation of the law for the time being. But we vow to continue our fight until the Cybercrime Law is declared unconstitutional,” said John Leonard Monterona, Migrante’s regional coordinator. (Mindanao Examiner)