Against Cybercrime Law
It pointed out that RA 10175 defines cybersex very vaguely that it could cover private and intimate exchanges between two consenting adults and couples. It also said the new law’s provision on libel “is very alarming” such that the law still allows the prosecution under the Revised Penal Code of anybody prosecuted for e-libel under the Cybercrime Prevention Act. In its 27-page petition, NPC asked the High Court to impose a temporary restraining order against the law’s implementation, and asked that the law be declared unconstitutional as it "offend[s] the fundamental speech of expression, the press, the right to due process of law and equal protection of the law and right against jeopardy of the petitioners internet users, bloggers and citizens of the Philippines." Other grounds for the petition included: the law as a violation of the right to privacy, and violation of the right to equal protection. “If there was a cybercrime prevention act during martial law, there would have been no Edsa I… no Edsa II,” he said, because no criticism had been hurled against the government. He found objectionable two provisions in the law inserted by the bicameral conference committee that reconciled the Senate and House versions: The authority of the Department of Justice to block access to computer data and the one-degree increase in penalty for online libel compared to that called for under the Revised Penal Code. In his petition with the Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance, Casiño said the law violated freedom of speech, expression of the press as well as the right to privacy and communication.
The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 poses serious threats to Internet freedom, the right to privacy and other essential civil liberties including the freedom of speech, expression, and the press. We, the youth, journalists, activists, bloggers, and netizens of the Philippines -- along with the international community -- express our outright condemnation to...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document