Can the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 benefits us

Posted by Dean Empuerto on 8:45 PM

Under Bill of Rights of 1987 Constitution in Section 1 of Article III, “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.” In the Cybercrime Prevention Act, Section 19 “when a computer data is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ (Department of Justice) shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer.”

The Cybercrime Prevention Act is a good idea but not on what Aquino agreed on which the law mandates that people who post defamatory comments online be given much longer jail sentences than those who commit libel in traditional media. Do you think having as many people prosecuted in court for saying libellous in the Internet will prevent others to commit cybercrime? No matter how many wins in court the RA 10175 makes does not make it effective.

Libellous in some few extents is beneficial but perceived unlawful under the court of law. If someone mentions something libellous in the Internet perceived as unlawful by RA 10175, it is actually pointing out areas of life of that person that he or she either need to change or accept it. It’s beneficial if changes are made because it will correct the wrong thus makes everything right and if not disastrous if it is suppress.

So if someone has problems in the past that they can’t accept then it will be a discomfort for them for people saying libellous not just on the Internet. I don’t think RA 10175 could help you out but talking to psychologist will or someone who knows these areas well.

Under RA 10175 the government can monitor online activities, such as e-mail, video chats and instant messaging without a warrant. There is a difference between to prevent and control. 

We rather have a law that monitor government officials at all levels which prove to be very beneficial to everyone. We make them well focus into their job that is to serve the public interest and correct them if errors found. We will be able to avoid those costly senate investigations like on Mrs. Arroyo and CJ Corona to mention a few.  And in the end of their term they benefited with good report cards or just a few failed marks.

We do have an old law the RA 9292 The Electronics Engineering Law of 2004 that we need to implement since this is the bases of everything not just the Internet. Unlike RA 10175 were it received much punch from the public because of its controversial issues the RA 9292 becomes like a legend – ask anyone about this law and the answer is always “I don’t know it”.

We need to strengthen our Electronics too. Was it relapse or don’t-know-it like what happen on “RA 10175 controversy” was unacceptable and the government should look into it right away?

The real prevention is when you set up guidelines on Internet terminals like internet cafes or ISP regarding ethics of using it and employing the skills of our electronics engineers and technicians but never control users on what to write about on the Internet but rather encourage by creating organization suit for this purpose. And if for some reason one of its member’s makes mistakes we give options for them to make better and even more options for improvement. And from there we work to the top.

There are so many things we need to address in electronics in our own country. We shouldn’t be focusing on what we don’t want (like trying to catch people’s mistake) but rather helping each and every one to learn and grow.

If our government will not act on laws regarding Electronics especially on RA 9292 then we won't see enough benefits on Internet laws so any signed laws is useless until it is acted upon.

The Anti-Cybercrime Law of the Philippines (also known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 or Republic Act 10175) authored by Senator Edgardo J. Angara.

"The Cybercrime Prevention Act lays down a comprehensive legal framework for the detection, investigation and suppression of cybercrimes.." but not solution.

And the only person who voted against it is Senator Teofisto Guingona III because according to him ...

“First, some parts of the bill clearly attempts to legislate morality and penalize people if they breach our standards. I feel that as legislators, we have no right to dictate what people should or should not see. Unjustifiable prior restraint is an archaic policy that should not be in our statute books,”


Guingona said the law transplanted the Revised Penal Code definition of libel without specifying who is liable, exposing the owner of online newspapers, blogs, and websites to liability. 

“This is problematic because in the case of online communities, people are encouraged to actually participate (make comments, re-tweet, repost on Facebook),” he stated.

“With this law, editors and owners of these sites will be forced to lock down their websites and prevent people from commenting. I believe that editors can regulate the works of their writers but if you gag the general public, surely the Constitutional right to freedom of expression is threatened,” he added.

Guingona concluded: “This law sets us back. We cannot legislate morality. The Spanish inquisition has long been disbanded. I do not know why we are reviving it today.”

Click here for the Senate's press release

Click here to read the full version of the law

IECEP-Iligan Bay Chapter
IECEP-Iligan Bay ChapterUpdated: 8:45 PM