SC won't stop cyber law implementation 
MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) deferred yesterday action on the bid of various groups to stop the implementation of certain provisions of Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act, virtually allowing the new law to take effect today. In their regular session, the justices opted to set aside deliberations on seven petitions questioning the constitutionality of the provisions, to have more time to examine the issues before they tackle the case again at their next session on Tuesday. “The SC did not issue a TRO (temporary restraining order) in the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 petitions, which are up for further study,” SC public information office chief Ma. Victoria Gleoresty Guerra announced. The high court also did not require the respondents in the petitions to submit their comments. Four of the 14 justices were not present at the meeting. Three of them – Associate Justices Lucas Bersamin, Diosdado Peralta and Mariano del Castillo – were abroad on official trips while Associate Justice Roberto Abad was on leave. A total of seven petitions against RA 10175 were included and consolidated in the session of the justices and assigned to Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. as writer of the decision or ponente. Five petitions were filed last week by businessman Louis Biraogo, a group of journalists belonging to Alab ng Mamamahayag (ALAM), a group of bloggers and Internet law experts led by Jose Jesus Disini Jr. of the Internet and society program of UP College of Law, Sen. Teofisto Guingona III and another group of journalists, bloggers and lawyers led by UP law professor Harry Roque Jr. The two others were filed last Monday by a group of lawmakers, bloggers, members of academe and students led by Kabataan party-list Rep. Raymond Palatino; and militant groups Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), Anakpawis, Karapatan and Kilusang Mayo Uno. Among the provisions in the new law questioned in the petitions is section 4, which includes cyber defamation, cyber threats and Internet libel in the list of cybercrimes subject to prosecution by the Department of Justice. Petitioners argued that section 6 of the law, which hands down a higher degree of punishment for people found guilty of libel and allows them to be charged separately under the Revised Penal Code for the same offense, is unconstitutional. They also sought the nullification of section 19, which gives the secretary of justice the power to block or restrict access to any content upon prima facie finding of violation of the law even without trial. They said that these provisions violate “constitutional rights to due process, speech, expression, free press and academic freedom.” ‘Black protest’ vs cybercrime law Bayan Muna Rep. Teddy Casiño and his supporters held a program in front of the SC building, protesting what they said was insertion of the provisions on online libel and takedown powers of the DOJ by the Senate. They were joined by members of Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance, who gagged themselves with black tape while holding a banner that read “Stop Cyber Martial Law.” A social networking group, headed by Marlene Aguilar and her Facebook friends, also came to join the demonstration. Their manner of protest, however, was a bit bolder – simultaneously putting up the dirty finger to express their dismay at the assailed law. Another group of photographers and bloggers also came to take part in the protest. All of them wore black shirts in the program dubbed as “black protest,” which was also seen in popular networking sites Facebook and Twitter where profile photos turned black. Damage control A number of senators are now scrambling to win back the protestors of the law, whom they alienated by voting to approve the bill. Sen. Francis Escudero has prepared a bill to repeal certain provisions of the law, particularly on libel, which was the main gripe of bloggers and other people active on social media. In Escudero’s bill, Section 4 (c) (4) of RA 10175 will be repealed based on the “unequivocal constitutional provision on freedom of speech.” He previously explained that his move was consistent with his advocacy to decriminalize libel as contained in Senate Bill 2162, which he filed in July 2010. “With today’s modern technology, the crime of libel does not only prove antiquated but to the contrary, even overarching as a state tool to restrain freedom of speech,” Escudero said in his current proposed bill. He expressed concern that the Anti-Cybercrime Law even broadens the coverage of libel to include the use of computer systems or other means that may be devised in the future. Sen. Pia Cayetano, who just like Escudero voted to approve the bill on third reading at the Senate, has also signified her intention to file her own bill either to amend or repeal RA 10175. Cayetano, in a series of tweets she posted while in Shanghai, China, said that she is currently reviewing the law and working with some groups on the possible amendments or repeal of provisions of the law. “As a blogger myself, I understand the concern of netizens. We don’t want to hamper intelligent public discourse online. That said, I’m open to discuss suggested amendments to the contentious provisions of the law with the sponsor, Sen. Angara,” she said in a previous tweet. Cayetano said that she is looking to file her proposed bill next week when Congress resumes session after a two-week break. When the bill was taken up for voting on third reading at the Senate, only Senator Guingona voted against it. He has now filed a petition against the law and urged the SC to act swiftly to protect Internet users from any harm caused by the erratic provisions. “Let me say this once again, the state has no right to gag its citizens and convict them for expressing their thoughts. The Philippines is a democratic country. Filipinos should never be left to cower in the sidelines. Their thoughts and voices should not be shackled by fear and intimidation. The people should not be afraid of their own government,” Guingona said. He said implementation of the law “will take back the Filipinos to the Dark Ages where freedom of speech and expression were not recognized.” Aurora Rep Juan Edgardo Angara, one of the authors of the law, said he is open to amend the contentious provisions, which he clarified did not emanate from the House of Representatives. Casiño and Kabataan party-list Rep. Raymond Palatino, on the other hand, filed House Bill 6613 seeking to repeal the contentious provisions of the new law. Passing the buck Malacañang gave assurance yesterday that the government was aware of the opposition to the law and the SC and legislators would have to act now. Deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said it would be best to wait for the SC decision since petitions against the new law had been filed. Valte said the Department of Justice was well aware of the rights of every citizen and “we can assure you that those rights will be protected when it comes to matters that are raised under this particular law.” Asked about Justice Secretary Leila de Lima’s own reservations on some provisions of the law, particularly online libel, she said it would be up to De Lima to discuss this matter with President Aquino. “Secretary De Lima is already aware of the protests. I understand that DOJ is part of the three agencies that will craft the IRR (implementing rules and regulations) along with the DOST-ICTO (Department of Science and Technology-Information and Communications Technology Office) and the DILG (Department of the Interior and Local Government),” Valte said. She said she could not answer for the senators as to why they were questioning the law now when they themselves were there during deliberations. “Perhaps we can see in the minutes of Senate deliberations but, as of the moment, I am not aware of how engaged a particular senator was in the deliberations,” Valte said. With the decision of the SC to defer action on petitions against the cybercrime law, De Lima said there is no legal impediment for its implementation. She said the law will take effect today even pending drafting and publication of its implementing rules and regulations. “Effectivity of that law is not conditioned upon the adoption of the IRR and the setting up of the Office of Cybercrime. No legal impediment for the law’s implementation, given the absence of a TRO or injunction,“ she told The STAR. Meanwhile, a group of hackers calling themselves Philippine Cyber Army hacked one of the official websites of the Philippine National Police (PNP) yesterday. PNP spokesman Chief Superintendent Generoso Cerbo Jr. said the leadership of PNP-Police Community Relation Group (PCRG) had its website pnp.pcrg.gov.ph deactivated and their IT unit is working to fix the problem. – Marvin Sy, Paolo Romero, Aurea Calica, Cecille Suerte Felipe