You are on page 1of 7

Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012

Congress of the Philippines

An Act Defining Cybercrime, Providing for the Prevention, Investigation, Suppression and the Imposition of Penalties Therefor and for Other Purposes

Citation

Republic Act No. 10175

Territorial extent

Philippines

Enacted by

House of Representatives of the Philippines

Date enacted

June 4, 2012

Enacted by

Senate of the Philippines

Date enacted

June 5, 2012

Date signed

September 12, 2012

Providing for the Prevention. Investigation and Imposition of Penalties Therefor and for Other Purposes Bill citation Senate Bill 2796 Bill published on May 3. Providing for the Philippines Prevention. 2012 Second reading May 9. 2012 Introduced by Susan Yap (Tarlac) First reading February 13. 2012 Conference committee bill passed June 4. 2012 Third reading May 21. 2011 . 2012 Bill introduced in the Senate of An Act Defining Cybercrime. Suppression and Imposition of Penalties Therefor and for Other Purposes Bill citation House Bill 5808[note 2] Bill published on February 9. 2012[note 1] Legislative history Bill introduced in the House of Representatives of the Philippines An Act Defining Cybercrime.Signed by Benigno Aquino III Date commenced October 3.

and extended it on 5 February 2013 "until further orders from the court. 2796 and House Bill No. It aims to address legal issues concerning online interactions and the Internet in the Philippines. the Supreme Court of the Philippines issued a temporary restraining order.[4] . 2012 Third reading January 30. 5808 Keywords Aiding and abetting. 2012 Conference committee bill passed June 5. 2011 Second reading January 24. illegal access to data and libel.Introduced by Edgardo Angara First reading May 3. identity theft. On October 9.obscenity. Among the cybercrime offenses included in the bill arecybersquatting. 10175. child pornography. 2012.[1] While hailed for penalizing illegal acts done via the internet that were not covered by old laws. which is perceived to be a curtailment in freedom of expression. 2012 Date passed by conference committee May 30."[2][3] On May 24. defamation. namely. the act has been criticized for its provision on criminalizing libel. cybersex. officially recorded as Republic Act No. the contentious online libel provisions. stopping implementation of the Act for 120 days. fraud. is a law in the Philippines approved on September 12. 2012. trespass to chattels Status: Not fully in force The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. The DOJ announced that provisions of the law have been dropped. 2013. 2012 Committee report Joint Explanation of the Conference Committee on the Disagreeing Provisions of Senate Bill No.

Finally. the Act provides for a "catch-all" clause.[5] Contents [hide]            1 History 2 Provisions 3 Reactions 4 Petitions to the Supreme Court 5 Revision of the law 6 Supreme Court Ruling 7 Repeal of the law 8 Notes 9 See also 10 References 11 External links History[edit] The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is the first law in the Philippines which specifically criminalizes computer crime. also criminalizing them when committed using a computer system. and the final version of the Act was later signed into law by President Benigno Aquino III on September 12 Provisions[edit] The Act. content-related offenses such as cybersex and spam. While laws such as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 (Republic Act No. 9779 (the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009).[7] Although several cybercrime-related bills were filed in the 14th and 15th Congress. authored by Representative Susan Yap-Sulit of thesecond district of Tarlac and 36 other co-authors. 8792[6]) regulated certain computer-related activities. the computer programmer charged with purportedly writing theILOVEYOU computer worm. divided into 31 sections split across eight chapters. 5808. an offense under Section 355 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines. the Supreme Court decision is constitutional on section 5 of the law. respectively. including illegal access (hacking). while Sections 4-C-3. and libel. 2014. Both bills were passed by their respective chambers within one day of each other on June 5 and 4. 2796. and other offenses. Onel de Guzman. computerrelated offenses such as computer fraud. shortly after the impeachment of Renato Corona. The law also reaffirms existing laws against child pornography. criminalizes several types of offenses. device misuse. 2012. these laws did not provide a legal basis for criminalizing crimes committed on a computer in general: for example. which prior to the passage of the law had no strong legal precedent in Philippine jurisprudence. 12 and 19 was unconstitutional. proposed by Senator Edgardo Angara. cybersquatting. the Cybercrime Prevention Act in its current form is the product of House Bill No.On February 18. wherein all offenses currently punishable under the Revised Penal Code are likewise punishable under the Act when committed . was ultimately not prosecuted by Philippine authorities due to a lack of legal basis for him to be charged under existing Philippine laws at the time of his arrest. an offense under Republic Act No. data interference. and Senate Bill No. 7.

It also mandates the establishment of special "cybercrime courts" which will handle cases involving cybercrime offenses (offenses enumerated in Section 4(a) of the Act).freedom of speech and data security in the Philippines. Jurisdiction also lies when a punishable act is either committed within the Philippines. The Act also mandates the National Bureau of Investigation and the Philippine National Police to organize a cybercrime unit Lyle Harvey Espinas. 2014 that the libel provisions of this act is now legal. citing an increase in the confidence of investors due to measures for the protection of electronic devices and online data. require the disclosure of computer data within 72 hours after receipt of a court warrant from a service provider. or whether damage was done to any natural or juridical person who at the time of commission was within the Philippines. particularly with how its provisions could potentially affect freedom of expression.[11] . whether the erring device is wholly or partly situated in the Philippines. with corresponding stricter penalties than if the crimes were punishable under the Revised Penal Code alone.[8] Complementary to the takedown clause is a clause mandating the retention of data on computer servers for six months after the date of transaction.[9] Media organizations and legal institutions though have criticized the Act for extending the definition of libel as defined in theRevised Penal Code of the Philippines. collect real-time traffic data from Internet service providers with due cause.using a computer. originally not included in earlier iterations of the Act as it was being deliberated through Congress. empowering the Department of Justice to restrict and/or demand the removal of content found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. which has been criticized by international organizations as being outdated:[10] the United Nations for one has remarked that the current definition of libel as defined in the Revised Penal Code is inconsistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.The Supreme Court of the Philippines declares on February 18. among others. and conduct searches and seizures of computer data and equipment. Reactions[edit] Screenshot of the social networking site Facebook. and therefore violates the respect of freedom of expression. without the need for a court order. staffed by special investigators whose responsibility will be to exclusively handle cases pertaining to violations of the Act. which may be extended for another six months should law enforcement authorities request it. 2012.Regional Trial Courts shall have jurisdiction over cases involving violations of the Act. under the supervision of the Department of Justice. was inserted during Senatedeliberations on May 31. The unit is empowered to. The local business process outsourcing industry has received the new law well. A takedown clause is included in the Act. as the Filipinos changed their profile pictures into black in protest against the Cybercrime Prevention Law of 2012 The new Act received mixed reactions from several sectors upon its enactment. The Act has universal jurisdiction: its provisions apply to all Filipino nationals regardless of the place of commission. This provision.

[18] The lack of a temporary restraining order meant that the law went into effect as scheduled on October 3.[16] Petitions to the Supreme Court[edit] Several petitions have been submitted to the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of the Act. 2012 . Filipino netizens reacted by blacking out their Facebook profile pictures and trending the hashtag #notocybercrimelaw on Twitter. Raymond Palatino 5 National Artist Bienvenido Lumbera et al.[17] However. the government requested the lifting of the TRO [20] Petitioner Date of Filling 1 Sen. 2012 4 Kabataan party-list Rep.[19] In early December. the Supreme Court deferred on acting on the petitions.[14] The Electronic Frontier Foundation has also expressed concern about the Act. Teofisto Guingona III 2 Group of lawyers from the Ateneo School of Law 3 Journalists led by Alab ng Mamahayag (ALAM) September 24. 2012. the main proponent of the Act. on October 2. 6 Technology law experts led by UP Law professor JJ Disini 7 Louis Biraogo September 25. Anonymous also defaced government websites. Senator Teofisto Guingona III criticized the bill.[13] However. citing the absence of justices which prevented the Court from sitting en banc. defended the law by saying that it is a legal framework to protect freedoms such as the freedom of expression. He asked the Act's critics to wait for the bill's implementing rules and regulations to see if the issues were addressed. On October 9.Senator Edgardo Angara. including those of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. calling it a prior restraint to the freedom of speech and freedom of expression. In protest.[15] supporting local media and journalist groups which are opposed to it. The Centre for Law and Democracy also published a detailed analysis criticizing the law from a freedom of expression perspective.[12] He also added that the new law is unlike the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act. the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System and the Intellectual Property Office. stopping implementation of the Act for 120 days. 2012. the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order.

The Supreme Court extended the temporary restraining order on the law. The Supreme Court has scheduled the same amount of time for oral arguments on Tuesday. like child pornography and cybersquatting. 2013. 2012 12 Bayan Muna. "The Professional Heckler” and 18 more bloggers October 4. including the ones that violated the provisions on double jeopardy. 15 January 2013 by the petitioners and on 22 January by the Solicitor General. as well as other provisions that "are punishable under other laws already"."[2][3] Revision of the law[edit] On May 24. among others. Neri Colmenares 13 National Press Club 14 Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance 15 Harry Roque et al. although it struck down other provisions. 2014.8 National Union of Journalists of the Philippines and the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility 9 Bloggers and Netizens for Democracy (BAND) led by Tonyo Cruz. 2012 10 Philippine Bar Association 11 Paul Cornelius Castillo and Ryan Andres October 3.[4][22] Supreme Court Ruling[edit] On February 18. The DOJ will endorse the revised law to the next 16th Congress of the Philippines. The DOJ announced that online libel provisions of the law have been dropped. The petitioners are planning to appeal the decision. repealing the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. "until further orders from the court.[21] On 5 February 2013. Rep.[5] Repeal of the law[edit] A Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom has been crowdsourced by Filipino netizens with the intent of.[23] . The Supreme Curt ruled the online libel provision of the act is constitutional.