(Image, which I found elsewhere, is not mine. No copyright infringement intended.)
The status of R. A. 10175
By Gary Mariano|De La Salle University
Draft
Draft
- The Cybercrime Prevention Act, signed into law on Sept. 12, 2012, is the subject of a 120-day restraining order issued by the Philippines Supreme Court on Oct. 12 (which should expire on Feb. 9, 2013).
- The Court has scheduled oral arguments for Jan. 15, 2013.
- There are nine bills in Congress, filed after the uproar of protest the law created, seeking to repeal or amend parts of the Act.
Sec. 4(c)(4)
This is the provision that makes the new law highly controversial. One, it penalizes electronic libel, whose analogue version is already a crime (Article 353, Revised Penal Code, 1930). Two, it raises the penalty for e-libel one notch. What used to be a minimum prison term of six months and one day has become six years and one day!
All but two of the nine bills in Congress have their crosshairs on Section, paragraph C, subparagraph 4.
These are House Bills 6613 (Raymond Palatino/Kabataan and Teodoro Casiño/Bayan Muna), 6616 (Antonio Tinio/ACT Teachers), 6630 (Walden Bello/Akbayan); and Senate Bills 3288 (Francis Escudero), 3295 (Loren Legarda), 3297 (Pia Cayetano), and 3301 (Peter Cayetano).
[3302, Peter Cayetano; 3315, Edgardo Angara]
The three House bills and those filed by Angara and the Cayetanos also seek to strike the whole of Sec. 6, which subjects acts already punishable in the Revised Penal Code to a stiffer penalty. This is the measure that makes e-libel punishable by prision mayor in its minimum to medium terms, compared with the erstwhile prision correccional for conventional libel.
(Prision correccional runs from six months and one day to six years; prision mayor from six years and one day to 12 years.)
These are House Bills 6613 (Raymond Palatino/Kabataan and Teodoro Casiño/Bayan Muna), 6616 (Antonio Tinio/ACT Teachers), 6630 (Walden Bello/Akbayan); and Senate Bills 3288 (Francis Escudero), 3295 (Loren Legarda), 3297 (Pia Cayetano), and 3301 (Peter Cayetano).
[3302, Peter Cayetano; 3315, Edgardo Angara]
The three House bills and those filed by Angara and the Cayetanos also seek to strike the whole of Sec. 6, which subjects acts already punishable in the Revised Penal Code to a stiffer penalty. This is the measure that makes e-libel punishable by prision mayor in its minimum to medium terms, compared with the erstwhile prision correccional for conventional libel.
(Prision correccional runs from six months and one day to six years; prision mayor from six years and one day to 12 years.)
Other targets
Pia Cayetano's bill likewise calls for the repeal of the cybersex provision in Sec. 4(c)(1).
Also sought for repeal are Sec. 5(a) and Sec. 7.
Sec. 5(a) is the "aiding and abetting" provision which netizens fear would make forwarding, reblogging, reposting, or retweeting material that would be deemed libelous, equally punishable.
Sec. 7 is provides for liability under other laws.
Palatino and Casiño's bill calls for the deletion of the entire Chapter IV, "Enforcement and Implementation"(Sections 10 through 19).
Another contested provision is Sec. 12, which allows law enforcers to record "technical data" in real time. Pia Cayetano wants this section out, while Tinio seeks to require a court warrant.
Sections 18 ("Exclusionary Rule") and 19 ("Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data") are also targets for amendment. Angara wants evidence violating the Act inadmissible in court.
Tinio, Legarda and Pia Cayetano want Section 19 stricken from the law. Bello, Angara and Peter Cayetano propose amendments that require a court order prior to restricting or blocking access to computer data.
Questionable
Sec. 5(b) makes a "willfull attempt" to commit a cybercrime equally liable.
