Dae Han International College Of Business and Technology

Brgy. Siwang San Juan Floodway Road 20, Taytay Rizal

“THE MAGNA CARTA FOR

PHILIPPINE INTERNET FREEDDOM ”
(Media, Information & Literacy)

Submitted by: John Michael Mayag

Strand: H.E 12-A
Teacher: Mr. Alfred Jefferson Reclosado
Introduction:

The Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom (MCPIF) used the term
hacking as one of the violations against data security. The term should have been
made more specific since hacking can either be for a good or bad cause. It can be a
means to test a software’s security system or it can be made to obtain files without
valid authorization as to cause injury to the owner. This has been the problem with
the E-Commerce Law. The terms used were not technical which should have been
since we are talking about information and communications technology.

Discussion:

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago has consistently pursuing the Senate Bill
No. 3327 also known as the Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom,
Cybercrime Prevention and Law Enforcement, Cyber defense and National Cyber
security. There has been an urgency and need to create of another law which will
really protect the rights and freedom of Filipinos in cyberspace and defining and
penalizing cybercrimes, after all software designers, IT specialists, academics,
bloggers, engineers, lawyers, and human rights advocates already approached her
office with a draft of the MCPIF. It is stated that freedom of speech is important and a
right of each Filipino that must not be deprived. The general purpose of which she
has said in one of the articles of the senate website, “‘While it is important to
crackdown on criminal activities on the internet, protecting constitutional rights like
free expression, privacy, and due process should hold a higher place in crafting
laws,’ she said.”

In the same manner, in the long run it would be beneficial for the country and to its
users because according to statistics, the global offshore services market is growing
at a healthy albeit slower pace, and will more than double by 2016. Companies now
regard outsourcing far more as a means to reduce costs for business operations.
Overall, the outlook for Asia/Pacific's BPO market remains positive with the
Philippines aiming for 10% of the total BPO market or about US$25 billion.

The bill also stated that the internet must be an open network, so it means that
everyone can access the internet and only the private network can restrict or limit the
interaction in the internet. It has a lot of other statements such as Promotion of
network neutrality, Promotion of universal access to the Internet, Right to privileged
access to devices, Right to freedom of speech and expression on the Internet,
Protection of the freedom to innovate and create without permission, Right to privacy
data, and Right to security data are among others. In conclusion, it stated that we
can do anything in the cyber world but if the State thinks that it is against the law,
then that’s the time that someone will be punished.

Senate Bill No. 3327 differs from Republic Act No. 10175 on the following provisions:
1) Issues on Libel. – Libel in RA No. 10175 as indicated in Section 4(4),
Section 6 and Section 8 are penalized under the Revised Penal Code although it
provides for a one degree higher penalty where in SB 3327, libel is clearly defined in
Section 33 specifically classified as Internet libel where it treats such as a civil
liability rather than a criminal act as stated in Chapter 8 (Penalties) of said bill. Civil
liability is better on one side because it brings to the bottom line of whether the
offended person will be compensated for the damage/s done on his part, on the
other hand, leaving behind the criminal liability would be detrimental on the long run
since it would not benefit the general public in instilling the discipline so as to avoid
the same happening again. I think it would be better if there would be a combination
of both the criminal and civil aspect so as to benefit not only the general public but
also the offended person as well.

2) Right against Illegal Searches and Seizures. - As provided in the 1987

Constitution, Article III Section 2, ‘The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures
of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.’

RA 10175 allows the warrantless real-time collection of traffic data as provided in

Section 12 of said act. This is with due cause and with certain limitations. I would
not agree that this violates the Constitution because the latter provides for the
general rule however, exceptions are allowed in certain situations provided they are
specifically stated so as not to violate such right. Traffic data refer only to the
communication’s origin, destination, route, time, date, size, duration, or type of
underlying service, but not content, nor identities. All other data to be collected or
seized or disclosed will require a court warrant. Moreover, before obtaining the court
warrant there would still be a need of showing basis for such approval and grant,
hence, there is certain guideline which cannot be attributed to violating the right
against illegal search and seizure. On the other hand, the MCPIF, provides for
specific guidelines as seen in Section 28 of said bill in illegal and arbitrary seizure as
well as other provisions on obtaining or collection any data or information privacy
and security of data, protection of intellectual property, notification and providing
stricter penalties to further protect the data.

3) Issues on Right to privacy. In the MCPIF, the role of government agencies

and law enforcement agencies are ascertained and are given responsibility in its
implementation as provided in Chapter IX of said law. Furthermore, section 27
provides for violation of data security like hacking, cracking, phishing and violating
another act – Data Privacy Act. On the other hand, the criticism on the ‘takedown’
clause has been misunderstood in the sense that Section 19 of RA 10175 starts with
the phrase, ‘When a computer data is prima facie found to be in violation of the
provisions of this Act…’ which shows that intrusion to privacy is not the main target
but rather the protection of data and all other persons and things affected. When we
speak of ‘prima facie’, it is without a doubt and found to be with basis and supported
with evidence that such person has violated this Act, hence, leaves the DOJ no
choice but to issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer data. Never
will it occur when such accusations be found to be baseless and unfounded, only
then will it lead to violation to right of privacy. The opinion on this Section which is
without due process of law is weak in the sense that it entails a strong proof to really
show that such violate said due process of law and no reasonable grounds to accuse
and/or arrest depending on the gravity of the situation. In the same way, what
MCPIF is adding to this issue specifically having court proceedings in cases where
websites or networks are to be taken down and necessary court orders are
supportive of RA 10175 in order also to ensure that the respective agencies would
not abuse the authority given to them but to use it for the purpose/s it has been
assigned thereto.

4) Issues on Double Jeopardy. Double jeopardy is defined as “A second

prosecution for the same offense after acquittal or conviction or multiple punishments
for same offense. The evil sought to be avoided by prohibiting double jeopardy is
double trial and double conviction, not necessarily double punishment.”

MCPIF provides for respective penalties in Chapter VIII of said act, Applicability of
the Revised Penal Code, Penalties For Specific Violations of The Magna Carta for
Philippine Internet Freedom, Penalties for Violations of the Magna Carta for
Philippine Internet Freedom Affecting Critical Networks and Infrastructure, Penalties
for Other Violations of The Magna Carta for Philippine Internet freedom, Penalties for
Violations of The Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom Committed by a
Public Official or Employee and Liability Under the Data Privacy Act, the Intellectual
Property Code, the Optical Media Act, the Anti-Child Pornography Act of2009, the
Revised Penal Code, and Other Laws. As said by Senator Santiago, SB 3327
prohibits double jeopardy while R.A. 10175 allows double jeopardy through
prosecution of offenses committed against its provisions and prosecution of offenses
committed against the Revised Penal Code and special laws, even though the
offenses are from a single act. I would not agree with this opinion where in fact as
provided in Section 5 of SB 3327, “Nomenclature notwithstanding, the provisions of
Book I of the Revised Penal Code shall apply suppletorily to the provisions of this
Act, whenever applicable. The provisions of special laws shall apply as provided for
by this Act”. This shows that the said bill may also lead to double jeopardy where in
fact does not. In the same way that RA 10175 does not automatically result to
double jeopardy.

5) Competent Authorities. RA 10175 provides in Sections 24, 25 and 26 the

creation of a Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC) for policy
coordination among concerned agencies and for the formulation and enforcement of
the national cybersecurity plan while in S.B. No 3327 a proposed Department of
Information and Communications Technology (DICT) is introduced , the creation of
which is currently pending before Congress which the MCPIF prepares the proposed
DICT, law enforcement agencies, and the military with provisions for handling
cybercrimes. Examples of which are provided in Section 47 of the bill provides
amendments to the AFP Modernization Act and Section 48, on mandating the
Philippine National Police and the National Bureau of Investigation to combat
cyberterrorism. On this part, there is no conflict but rather RA 10175 is further
developed by SB 3327 in order to ensure protection against cybercrimes and the
like. If both laws are reconciled, it would gear towards growth and responsibility to
the authorities as well as ensure protection on the users. After all, more manpower
working for the same purpose would lead to faster and efficient results which would
lead to the country’s growth.

6) ICT for national development. SB 3327 provides for areas of improvement

and opportunities for development in the field of Information Computer Technology
through constant updating and upgrading of advances in information technology,
such as those involving consumer welfare and copyright laws. In this way, there will
always be an opportunity to know and gain a deeper understanding on the different
areas of the ICT in order to know how to handle and attend to the issues and
concerns of the general public.

7) Crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing is an online process of getting work done by

tapping people on the Internet who volunteer their talent and skills. If this will be
passed, this concept shall be introduced to different department and agencies. One
of those has already started which is the Philhealth system. The Philippine Health
Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) launches the first of its ‘Crowdsourcing for
Health’ initiatives using GoogleMaps which encourages the online crowd to help map
all health facilities in the Philippines. In this way, it would be easier and more
convenient for the public to locate the health facilities and to be able to maximize the
assistance and services offered by Philhealth.

Conclusion:

The Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom promotes civil and political rights,
and upholds and promotes Constitutional guarantees in cyberspace, as they would
and should be in our daily lives. The #MCPIF is anchored on this principle: that the
Constitution is our foundation as citizens of the Republic and equally as Filipino
netizens in cyberspace. Our rights online are our rights offline. So the magna carta
prevent the bullying ,or any bad doing in social media also to secure the safety of the
people in the internet and to raise the human rights of the people who victim in the
internet.

Source:
https://yedaharellanolaw.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/magna-carta-for-philippine-internet-
freedom-how-can-senate-bill-53-be-improved/

https://mrjmarasigan.wordpress.com/2014/05/06/a-look-into-the-magna-carta-for-philippine-
internet-freedom/

http://michelleleal10.blogspot.com/2013/01/is-magna-carta-for-internet-freedom.html