TAG: RA 10175

POSTED ONNOVEMBER 30, 2015

Constitutional: Cybercrime offense of data interference
under Section 4(a) (3) of R.A. 10175
R.A. 10175 or the Philippine Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 penalizes the
cybercrime offense of data interference under Section 4 (a) (3).

In the various petitions filed before the Supreme Court, Petitioners sought to invalidate
this provision primarily through the doctrine of overbreadth.

This provision penalizing the cybercrime offense of data interference is reflected in

Section 4 (a) (3) of R.A. 10175, which is faithfully reproduced herein:

Section 4. Cybercrime Offenses. The following acts constitute the offense of

cybercrime punishable under this Act:

(a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data
and systems:

xxxx

(3) Data Interference. The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion

or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data
message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.

Based on the above-cited provision, the Cybercrime Offense of Data Interference is the
intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data,
electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the
introduction or transmission of viruses.

Continue readingConstitutional: Cybercrime offense of data interference under Section

4(a) (3) of R.A. 10175

POSTED ONNOVEMBER 23, 2015

Constitutional: Cybercrime offense of illegal access under
Section 4(a) (1) of R.A. 10175
R.A. 10175 or the Philippine Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 penalizes the
cybercrime offense of illegal dismissal under Section 4 (a) (1).
In the various petitions filed before the Supreme Court, Petitioners sought to invalidate
this provision primarily on the ground that it did not meet the strict scrutiny standard and
such would jeopardize the safety of ethical hackers.

This provision penalizing the cybercrime offense of illegal dismissal is reflected in

Section 19 of R.A. 10175, which is faithfully reproduced herein:

Section 4. Cybercrime Offenses. The following acts constitute the offense of

cybercrime punishable under this Act:

(a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data
and systems:

(1) Illegal Access. The access to the whole or any part of a computer system
without right.

Based on the above-cited provision, the Cybercrime Offense of Illegal Dismissal is the
access to the whole or any part of a computer system without right. A plain reading of
would readily show that a simple access of anothers computer system (e.g. mobile
phone, laptop, tablet) without any permission or consent would constitute illegal
dismissal.

Continue readingConstitutional: Cybercrime offense of illegal access under Section

4(a) (1) of R.A. 10175

POSTED ONNOVEMBER 16, 2015

VOID: DOJs authority to restrict or block access to
computer data, Section 19 of R.A. 10175
R.A. 10175 or the Philippine Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 authorized the
Department of Justice (DOJ) to restrict or block access to computer data.

In the various petitions filed before the Supreme Court, Petitioners sought to invalidate
this provision primarily on the ground that it violated the constitutional right against
unreasonable search and seizure, as well as the constitutional right to free speech.

This provision granting the DOJ to restrict or block access to computer data is reflected
in Section 19 of R.A. 10175, which is faithfully reproduced herein:

Sec. 19. Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data. When a computer

data is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ
shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer data.
The above-cited provision empowers or authorizes the Department of Justice to issue
an order restricting or blocking access to computer data which is found to be in violation
of the Philippine Cybercrime Law. The only requirement is that there should be a prima
facie finding of such violation.

Continue readingVOID: DOJs authority to restrict or block access to computer data,

Section 19 of R.A. 10175

POSTED ONNOVEMBER 9, 2015

VOID: Authority to collect or record traffic data in real-time
by Law Enforcement Authorities, Section 12 of R.A. 10175
R.A. 10175 or the Philippine Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 allowed for real-time
collection or recording of traffic data.

In the various petitions filed before the Supreme Court, Petitioners sought to invalidate
this provision primarily on the ground that it violated a persons right to privacy.

This provision on real-time collection of traffic data is reflected in Section 12 of R.A.

10175, which is faithfully reproduced herein:

Sec. 12. Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data. Law enforcement authorities, with
due cause, shall be authorized to collect or record by technical or electronic
means traffic data in real-time associated with specified communications
transmitted by means of a computer system.

Traffic data refer only to the communications 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.

Service providers are required to cooperate and assist law enforcement

authorities in the collection or recording of the above-stated information.

The court warrant required under this section shall only be issued or granted
upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the
applicant and the witnesses he may produce and the showing: (1) that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated hereinabove
has been committed, or is being committed, or is about to be committed; (2) that
there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence that will be obtained is
essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution of, or to the
prevention of, any such crimes; and (3) that there are no other means readily
available for obtaining such evidence.
Continue readingVOID: Authority to collect or record traffic data in real-time by Law
Enforcement Authorities, Section 12 of R.A. 10175

POSTED ONNOVEMBER 2, 2015

VOID: Cybercrime Offense on Posting Unsolicited
Commercial Communications, Section 4 (c) (3) of R.A.
10175
When R.A. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012) was passed, it contained a
provision prohibiting spam or unsolicited commercial advertisements being sent to
emails.

When the constitutionality of the law was challenged, this particular provision on anti-
spam was sought to be declared in valid, among others.

This provision on anti-spam is reflected in Section 4 (c) (3) of R.A. 10175, which is
faithfully reproduced herein:

Sec. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. The following acts constitute the offense of

cybercrime punishable under this Act:

x x x

(c) Content-related Offenses:

x x x

(3) Unsolicited Commercial Communications. The transmission of commercial

electronic communication with the use of computer system which seeks to
advertise, sell, or offer for sale products and services are prohibited unless:

(i) There is prior affirmative consent from the recipient; or

(ii) The primary intent of the communication is for service and/or administrative
announcements from the sender to its existing users, subscribers or customers;
or

(iii) The following conditions are present:

(aa) The commercial electronic communication contains a simple, valid, and

reliable way for the recipient to reject receipt of further commercial electronic
messages (opt-out) from the same source;
(bb) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely disguise the
source of the electronic message; and

(cc) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely include

misleading information in any part of the message in order to induce the
recipients to read the message.

Continue readingVOID: Cybercrime Offense on Posting Unsolicited Commercial

Communications, Section 4 (c) (3) of R.A. 10175

POSTED ONOCTOBER 26, 2015

Constitutional Challenges to R.A. 10175 or the Philippine
Cybercrime Prevention Prevention Act of 2012
The promulgation of R.A. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 did not sit in
well with various individuals and organizations. While there was an evident necessity for
such a law, the provisions and contents therein proved to be quite controversial.

As a result, numerous petitions were lodged in the Supreme Court seeking to invalidate
the provisions, if not, the entire law itself on the grounds of unconstitutionality. On
record, there were 15 petitions that were filed as follows:

1. Disini, Jr. v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335;

2. Biraogo v. National Bureau of Investigation, G.R. No. 203299;

3. Alab ng Mamamahayag (ALAM) v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 203306;

4. Guingona III v. Executive Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203359;

5. Adonis v. The Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 203378;

6. Palatino v. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 203391;

7. Reyes v. Aquino III, G.R. No. 203407;

8. Maria v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 203440;

9. National Union of Journalist of the Philippines (NUJP) v. Executive Secretary, G.R.

No. 203453;

10. Castillo v. Hon. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203454;

11. Cruz v. Aquino III, G.R. No. 203469;

12. Philippine Bar Association, Inc. v. Aquino III, G.R. No. 203501;

13. Colmenares v. Ochoa, Jr. , G.R. No. 203509;

14. National Press Club of the Philippines, Inc. v. Office of the President, G.R. No.
203515; and

15. Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 203518.

Continue readingConstitutional Challenges to R.A. 10175 or the Philippine Cybercrime

Prevention Prevention Act of 2012

POSTED ONOCTOBER 16, 2015

Introduction: Philippine Cybercrime Law
Prior to the R.A. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012), the following laws were
being used to attempt to prosecute cybercime offenders:

1. Revised Penal Code;

2. Access Device Regulation Act of 1998;

3. E-Commerce Act of 2000;

4. Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009;

5. Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines;

6. Consumer Act of the Philippines;

7. Special Protection of Children against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination;

8. Anti-Trafficking in Persons of 2003; and

9. Anti-Wire Tapping Law.

According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), these laws were inadequate to address
cybercrime offenses.[1] Consequently, the need arose for legislation that could address
cybercrime offenses in this increasing digital world.
R.A. 10175: Cybercrime Prevention Act of
2012
On 15 June 2011, the Philippines through an invitation acceded to the Budapest
Convention on Cybercrime. It is considered as the first international treaty aimed at
addressing Internet and cybercrime offenses through harmony with domestic laws and
international cooperation. The participants thereto adopted the Council of Europes
international definition of cybercrimes.

Consequently, this brought about the drive to legislate a local law to enforce the
objectives of the convention in the country. On 12 September 2012, the Philippines
enacted Republic Act No. 10175 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

The law primarily focused on defining cybercrime offenses, the enforcement and
implementation of the provisions therein, and the international cooperation for
transnational offenses.

Cybercrime offenses more than doubled

from 2013 to 2014

PNP Reports
Cybercrime 2013 v. 2014
The Philippine National Police (PNP) Anti-Cybercrime Group (ACG) reported an
increase of cybercrime incidents. In 2013, there were 228 cybercrime incidents. By
2014, the cybercrime incidents jumped to 614. It is an increase by as much as 270% in
a span of a year.
 PNP Reports
Distribution of Cybercrime for the year 2014
The distribution of the 2014 Cybercrime as follows:

22% : Internet Fraud/Scam

16% : Libel

11% : R.A. 9995 (Anti-Photo and Voyeurism Act of 2009)

10% : Harassment/Threat

9% : Identity Theft

8% : R.A. 8792 (Electronic Commerce Act of 2000)

7% : Sextortion/Referred Cases

4% : R.A. 8484 (Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998)

1% : R.A. 9262 (Anti-Violence against Women and Their Children)

1% : R.A. 7610 (Child Abuse Law)

1% : R.A. 9775 (Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009)

1% : Credit Card Fraud

1% : ATM Fraud

0% : R.A. 9208 (Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003)

0% : Illegal Online Gambling

References:

[1] DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF CYBERCRIME. Philippines 2014-2015

Cybercrime Report, The Rule of Law in Cyberspace, 15 March 2015. Accessible
here: https://www.doj.gov.ph/files/cybercrime_office/2014-
2015_Annual_Cybercrime_Report.pdf, last accessed 16 October 2015, 8:30PM PST.