Speech Debate Madame Chair, our side strongly believes that cybercrime should be abolished.

Our right to be heard and our freedom to express ourselves should not be compromised just because R.A. 10175 was implemented. As quoted by Atty. Harry Roque, There can be nothing sadder than suing the son of icons of democracy for infringement of a cherished right. The Internet is our source of information, a medium for communication and a lot more. It is fast, convenient and at the same time accessible for everyone. R.A. 10175 has a lot of loopholes which violates many of our constitutional rights. I will take this opportunity to show what contents of R.A. 10175 makes it unfavorable for our fellow netizens. 1. The cybercrime law is a special law According to Atty. Mel Sta. Maria, special laws dont need a criminal mind to be convicted. In short, good faith or lack of intent to do harm is not a defense. Therefore, liking or retweeting potentially libelous posts can get you in trouble. 2. section 4 - The law includes libel as crime and increased its penalty, but failed to define how the crime can be committed. 3. section 5 - Facebook likes and retweets can be a violation of the cybercrime law. 4. section 6 - The 1st catch-all provision makes the crime committed under the revise penal code graver with the use of technology. 5. section 12 - Allows the law enforcement agencies the work around to monitor our online activities without our knowledge. 6. section 19 - The take-down clause violates due process. 7. section 20 - The 2nd catch-all provision clause is also known as the draconian rule of martial law. 8. Aside from libel, another supposed crime that violates freedom is cybersex, because even legit couples are prohibited from engaging in that. This should not violate our right to privacy, due process and freedom of expression. Republic Act 10175, the Cybercrime Law, is a special law. What does that mean? It is an accepted legal rule that offenses under special laws are considered MALA PROHIBITA as distinguished from MALA IN SE. In the latter, there must be a criminal mind to be convicted. In murder, theft, robbery and other offenses punished by our Revised Penal Code, for example, intention to do wrong is an essential element. In the former, MALA PROHIBITA, there need not be a criminal mind. The mere perpetuation of the prohibited act is enough. Good faith and absence of a criminal mind, in other words, are not defenses. Intent is immaterial, for example, where ordinances prohibit jaywalking and littering. The Bouncing Check Law is another special law, and so the mere issuance of a check without funds is punishable. The Cybercrime Law contains a provision which may implicate anyone who uses Facebook or Twitter. Section 5 (a) of the law provides that ... The following acts shall also constitute an offense: Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime. Any person who willfully abets or aids in the commission of any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable. "To abet", according to Webster's Dictionary, means "to actively second and encourage", "to forward", or "to assist or support in the achievement of a purpose". On the other hand, "to aid" means "to provide with what is useful or necessary in achieving an end."

Article 3 of our Civil Code provides that "ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith". This means that if you are not aware of the effectivity of an existing law, you can still be held liable for violating it. Clearly, Republic Act Number 10175 is a special law providing as it does special crimes. It likewise adopts the crime of libel provided in the Revised Penal Code and all other crimes therein for as long as they are committed through a computer. To highlight the distinction and "separateness" of these adopted crimes, the Cybercrime Law imposes higher penalties. It also provides that a case under the Revised Penal Code is without prejudice to the filing of the another one under the Cybercrime Law. In other words, two cases originating from the same act can be filed separately. The filing can even be simultaneous or successive. Hence if the prosecutor fails in one, he or she can prosecute on the other. This is indeed a very special law. When a Facebook or Twitter user posts his or her views, comments, replies or blogs, his or her intention is clearly for other users to read them. When another user disseminates them or encourages them by sharing or re-tweeting ar even liking, he or she actively second and encourage, forward, assist or support in the achievement of the purpose of the original writer. Simply put, the sharer or retweeter abet the activities and the objective of the original writer. This may start a chain reaction. Others may show their support by merely clicking "like" or they may forward it by further sharing and retweeting. In the context of the specific provisions of the Cybercrime Law, therefore, sharers and retweeters, or even just "likers", are abettors regardless of intent. The moment he or she disseminates, he or she abets. A crime has been committed. The defense of good faith, lack of intention to injure and ignorance of the law become totally irrelevant. It is unconstitutionally overbroad "because it also threatens others not before the court-those who desire to engage in legally protected expression but who may refrain from doing so rather than risk prosecution or undertake to have the law declared partially invalid." (Brockett v. Spo kane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491[, 503, 105 S.Ct. 2794, 86 L.Ed.2d 394] (1985). The doctrine contemplates the pragmatic judicial assumption that an overbroad statute will have a chilling effect on protected expression." City of Daytona Beach v. Del Percio, 476 So.2d 197, 202 (Fla.1985). (Sult vs. State o. SC03-542, June 23, 2005) It violates substantive due process. Section 1 of Article III of the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution provides that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws." But the Cybercrime Law fundamentally violates procedural due process because of new legislation's Section 19. Section 19 provides that "when a computer data is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer."Interaksyon.com appropriately called it the "TAKEDOWN CLAUSE". Note that it will not even take a court order to potentially block a website. The DOJ itself will have that mandate. As discussed by Atty. Sta. Maria, "Beware the Cybercrime Laws Section 19- the Takedown Clause," the chilling-effect of the implementation of the law is the potential for limitless suppression of the freedom of expression and an undue interference into the privacy of people. It may not only take down your computer system. It can also take you down as a person and as a citizen. The penalty for cybercrime is one degree higher provided by the Revised Penal Code for all crimes committed through and with the use of information and communications. For example, the cybercrime law imposes heavier penalties for online libel than paper-based libel; single act of online libel will result in two convictions penalized separately under the RP and the Cybercrime Act, online libel under the Cybercrime Act will ensure the imprisonment of the accused and for a much longer period. It is shame that this law can put any innocent netizen to jail when there are actual criminals that should receive heavier penalties for the crimes that they have committed.

R.A. 10175 violates the constitutional right against Double Jeopardy. What is double jeopardy? The rule on double jeopardy means that when a person is charged with an offense and the case is terminate either by conviction or acquittal, or in any other manner without the consent of the accused, the latter cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense. Persons who commit crimes using information and communication technologies (ICTs) face the possibility of being imprisoned more than double the imprisonment laid down in the RPC or special law, simply by the passage of the Cybercrime Act. The cybercrimes defined and punished under Section 6 of the Act are absolutely identical to the crimes defined in the RPC and special laws which raises the possibility that an accused will be punished twice for the same offense in violation of the Constitution. Madame Chair cybercrime should be abolished. Not only it violates many of our constitutional rights but it also instills unnecessary fear towards the people. As a netizen, we all have the right to freely express ourselves whether on the internet or in real life. Internet is created alongside with the peoples liberty to use it as they wish. We are not slaves of the government, they cannot invade our freedom and privacy whenever they want to. Instead of implementing the Cybercrime law, they should only regulate and educate people the proper use of internet. Constricting our constitutional rights is not the solution. I therefore rest my case.