 Internet users,

journalists and
government
officials protests on
several sections of
the recently passed
Cybercrimes
Prevention Act as
unconstitutional
and that it infringes
on the right to
freedom of speech.
 Section 4, paragraph 4 which states that libel is a
cybercrime if committed online;
 Section 5, which punishes any person who aids or abets
the commission of any cybercrime, even if it is only
through Facebook or Twitter;
 Section 6 which adopts the entire Penal Code for as long
as the crime is committed through the use of information
technology, but the penalty would be one degree higher;
 Section 7 which makes the same crime punishable both
under the Penal Code and the Cybercrime Act; and Section
19 which authorizes the Department of Justice (DOJ) to
restrict access to computer data found to be in violation of
the new law or the so-called take down clause.
 Republic Act No. 10175 Section 4, paragraph
4– (Libel);The unlawful or prohibited acts of
libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, committed through
a computer system or any other similar
means which may be devised in the future.
 Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code defines
libel as “The public and malicious imputation
of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or
imaginary, or any
act, omission, condition, status, or
circumstance tending to cause the
dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural
or juridical person…”
 According to protesters, any Filipino citizen who
happens to use social media such as Facebook or
Twitter to share opinions against anyone can be
sued for libel
 Those who play a part in unwittingly or willfully
encouraging the spread of libelous content
(likes, share) shall be charged for abetting libel
 Any victim of a cybercrime could argue in court
that old libelous posts that are still live today can
be charged with online libel
 The law says, if you can’t say anything
good, then you better not say anything at all
 For the CPA Common Against the CPA
 Government stands firm • Laws that protect citizens • Internet users protests
on its decision to pass against fraud, cyber bullying against certain sections of
the law. States that it is and sex crimes needed the law as unconstitutional
needed and that libel is
such as the section on libel.
libel
 The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order on
Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
 The temporary restraining order stops law enforcement
agencies such as the Department of Justice, the National
Bureau of Investigation and even the Department of Science
and Technology (DOST) from implementing the assailed
provisions of the controversial law.
 The Philippine Supreme Court has received a total of 15
petitions questioning several provisions of Republic Act
10175 including the one on online libel and the real-time
collection of data.
 It’s very clear that there should be a law that
protects us from crimes committed online
however not at the expense of abridging the
freedom of speech
 Some sections of the law need to be amended
and carefully specified. The current law is vague
and the purpose of having it misinterpreted
 Law makers should acknowledge that the law
was not carefully created and that it needs more
work and hackers should refrain from attacking
government websites as it does not really help in
resolving the situation at all.
 http://filipinofreethinkers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/SottoCybercrimeTimeline-fullres.jpg
 http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/10/08/12/new-blacktuesday-protests-set-vs-cybercrime-law
 http://m.voanews.com/1519423.html
 http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/10/02/the-philippines-passes-the-cybercrime-prevention-act-that-makes-
sopa-look-reasonable/
 http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/276434/scitech/socialmedia/digital-martial-law-10-scary-things-about-the-
cybercrime-prevention-act-of-2012
 http://www.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/
 http://ph.news.yahoo.com/philippine-president-defends-cybercrime-law-132453471.html
 http://ph.news.yahoo.com/miriam-expects-sc-reject-cyber-law-160631692.html