The Philippine Cybercrime Prevention

Act of 2012: To Protect or Destroy?

Rafael A. Sampayan
Advance Legal English
PSU – School of Law
1B
1
Introduction:

Relatively new breeds of technology-related felonies called “cybercrimes”

have proven to be a bane to different sectors of society, especially to business.
The glaring damaging effect that it has caused to different business industries
cannot anymore be ignored. However, is the Philippines adequately protected?
Are its present laws sufficient to tackle the prongs of this blight? On the contrary,
are these laws too myopically focused on eliminating cybercrime that certain
freedoms have been overlooked, or worse, compromised? The aim of this paper
is to essentially give an overview of the current protection and its effects on our
basic rights. A special focus is given on the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
and the perceived constitutionality or unconstitutionality of its provisions. The
paper also aims to recommend a plausible alternative, which may provide an
answer to the objectives of the anti-cybercrime thrust of the government but
without sacrificing the constitutional rights of the people.

Background:

The prevalence of Cybercrime in the Philippines

In recent years, the Philippines has experienced a significant increase in the
number of reported cybercrimes. According to a report released by the Philippine
National Police Anti-Cybercrime Group (PNP-ACG), there were 869 reported
cybercrime incidents in the country in 2020, a 79% increase from the previous
year.
One of the most common forms of cybercrime in the Philippines is online
fraud. This includes scams involving fake job offers, investment schemes, and
phishing scams that target individuals' personal information such as bank details
or login credentials. Social media has also become a platform for cybercriminals to
carry out their illegal activities, including the spread of fake news and online
harassment.
Another form of cybercrime in the Philippines is online child sexual
exploitation. The country has become a hub for online child sexual exploitation

2
due to factors such as poverty, a lack of education, and the widespread availability
of technology.
Moreover, the rise of digital banking and online financial transactions has
also made the Philippines a target for cybercriminals. In 2020, there were several
high-profile cyber-attacks targeting banks and financial institutions in the country,
resulting in millions of pesos being stolen.
Overall, the prevalence of cybercrime in the Philippines is a growing
concern for law enforcement agencies, businesses, and individuals alike. The
government has introduced various measures to combat cybercrime, including the
Philippine Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which criminalizes several forms of
cybercrime and provides law enforcement with additional tools to investigate and
prosecute cybercriminals. However, there is still a need for greater public
awareness and education about online security and the risks associated with
digital technologies.
The Need for a Law to Address Cybercrime
The need for a law to address cybercrime is highlighted by the growing
prevalence of cybercrime and the challenges that law enforcement agencies face
in investigating and prosecuting cybercriminals.
Cybercrime is a global problem that affects individuals, businesses, and
governments. It includes a wide range of illegal activities that are carried out using
the internet or other digital technologies, such as hacking, online fraud, identity
theft, cyberbullying, and the spread of malware and viruses.
One of the biggest challenges of combating cybercrime is the borderless nature of
the internet, which makes it difficult for law enforcement agencies to track down
and apprehend cybercriminals who may be operating in different countries.
Cybercrime is often transnational in nature, and it requires a coordinated effort
among different countries and law enforcement agencies to effectively address it.
A law to address cybercrime provides law enforcement agencies with the legal
framework and tools they need to investigate and prosecute cybercriminals. It
also serves as a deterrent to would-be cybercriminals, as it imposes penalties for
cybercrimes and sends a clear message that such activities will not be tolerated.

3
The Philippine Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 was introduced to provide law
enforcement with the legal framework and tools they needed to combat
cybercrime and protect individuals, businesses, and the government from the
harmful effects of cybercrime.
Overview of the Republic Act No. 10175, Philippine Cybercrime Prevention Act
of 2012
Key Provisions of the Law
The Republic Act No. 10175, Philippine Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is a law
that aims to prevent and combat cybercrime in the Philippines. The law was
signed into law on September 12, 2012, and it provides a legal framework for the
investigation, prosecution, and prevention of various cybercrimes.

The key provisions of the Philippine Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 include:

1. Definition of Cybercrime: The law defines various types of cybercrime, such

as hacking, identity theft, cybersex, and the distribution of child
pornography.

2. Penalties: The law imposes penalties for various cybercrimes, ranging from
fines to imprisonment. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment for
offenses involving the transmission of child pornography.

3. Jurisdiction: The law provides that cybercrimes committed in the Philippines

are subject to Philippine jurisdiction, regardless of whether the offender is a
Filipino or a foreign national.

4. Investigation and Prosecution: The law provides law enforcement agencies

with the legal framework and tools they need to investigate and prosecute
cybercrimes. It also requires service providers to preserve and disclose data
for the purpose of investigation.

4
 5. Cybersecurity: The law requires the government to establish a cybersecurity
management system to protect government and critical information
infrastructure from cyber threats.

6. International Cooperation: The law provides for international cooperation

and mutual assistance in investigating and prosecuting cybercrimes,
including extradition of offenders.

Overall, the Philippine Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is a

comprehensive law that provides law enforcement agencies with the legal
framework and tools they need to combat cybercrime in the Philippines. The law
aims to protect individuals, businesses, and the government from the harmful
effects of cybercrime and to promote a safe and secure cyberspace in the country.

Penalties for various cybercrimes

The Philippine Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 imposes penalties for various
types of cybercrime, depending on the severity of the offense. The penalties range
from imprisonment to fines, and in some cases, both. The following are the
penalties for some of the most common types of cybercrime under the law:

1. Illegal Access: The penalty for illegal access to a computer system is

imprisonment of six months to three years or a fine of at least PHP 100,000
(approximately USD 2,000) but not exceeding PHP 500,000 (approximately
USD 10,000), or both.

2. Illegal Interception: The penalty for illegal interception of computer data is

imprisonment of six months to four years or a fine of at least PHP 100,000
(approximately USD 2,000) but not exceeding PHP 500,000 (approximately
USD 10,000), or both.

3. Data Interference: The penalty for data interference is imprisonment of six

months to six years or a fine of at least PHP 200,000 (approximately USD
4,000) but not exceeding PHP 1,000,000 (approximately USD 20,000), or
both.
5
 4. Computer-Related Forgery: The penalty for computer-related forgery is
imprisonment of six years and one day to 12 years or a fine of at least PHP
200,000 (approximately USD 4,000) but not exceeding PHP 500,000
(approximately USD 10,000), or both.

5. Cybersex: The penalty for cybersex is imprisonment of six to 12 years and a

fine of at least PHP 200,000 (approximately USD 4,000) but not exceeding
PHP 1,000,000 (approximately USD 20,000), or both.

6. Child Pornography: The penalty for the production, distribution, and

possession of child pornography is imprisonment of six to 20 years and a
fine of at least PHP 500,000 (approximately USD 10,000) but not exceeding
PHP 5,000,000 (approximately USD 100,000), or both. The penalty for the
transmission of child pornography is life imprisonment and a fine of at least
PHP 1,000,000 (approximately USD 20,000) but not exceeding PHP
5,000,000 (approximately USD 100,000), or both.

The penalties for cybercrime under the Philippine Cybercrime Prevention Act of
2012 are severe and reflect the seriousness of these offenses. The penalties aim
to deter cybercriminals from committing these crimes and to protect individuals,
businesses, and the government from the harmful effects of cybercrime.

Implementation of the Law

The Republic Act No. 10175, Philippine Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
has been implemented since its enactment, and it has been a useful tool for law
enforcement agencies to combat cybercrime in the country. The following are
some of the measures taken to implement the law:

Creation of Cybercrime Investigation and Coordination Center: The Department of

Justice (DOJ) created the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordination Center (CICC)
to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of cybercrimes. The CICC serves as a

6
central repository of cybercrime-related data and information and coordinates
with other law enforcement agencies to address cybercrime cases.

Training and Capacity Building: The government has provided training and
capacity building programs for law enforcement agencies to enhance their skills in
investigating and prosecuting cybercrime. The DOJ has conducted several
seminars and workshops to train prosecutors and judges on cybercrime-related
issues, including the interpretation and application of the law.

Collaboration with the Private Sector: The government has worked with the
private sector, including Internet service providers (ISPs), to address cybercrime.
The law requires ISPs to report any cybercrime-related incidents to law
enforcement agencies promptly. Additionally, the government has collaborated
with the private sector to develop cybersecurity awareness campaigns and to
develop measures to protect critical information infrastructure from cyber threats.

Prosecution of Cybercriminals: The Philippine National Police (PNP) and the

National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) have investigated and prosecuted several
cases of cybercrime since the enactment of the law. The government has
successfully convicted several cybercriminals and imposed heavy fines and
imprisonment penalties on them.

Despite these measures, there have been some criticisms of the law's
implementation. Some have argued that the law's provisions are too broad and
could be used to stifle freedom of expression and undermine privacy rights.
Others have criticized the government for not doing enough to prevent
cybercrime or to protect individuals from cyber threats.

The Philippine Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 has been implemented since its
enactment, and several measures have been taken to combat cybercrime in the
country. While there have been some criticisms of the law's implementation, it
remains an essential tool for law enforcement agencies to prevent and address
cybercrime in the Philippines.

7
Challenges Encountered During the Implementation Process

The implementation of the Republic Act No. 10175 Philippine Cybercrime

Prevention Act of 2012 has faced several challenges since its enactment. The
following are some of the most significant challenges encountered during the
implementation process:

1. Constitutional Issues: The law's provisions have been criticized for violating
freedom of expression and privacy rights guaranteed under the Philippine
Constitution. Some critics argue that the law's provisions are too broad and
could be used to stifle legitimate dissent and criticism.

2. Lack of Resources: The government has faced challenges in providing

sufficient resources, including personnel and equipment, to investigate and
prosecute cybercrime cases adequately. The lack of resources has led to
delays in resolving cases, reducing the law's effectiveness in addressing
cybercrime.

3. Limited Awareness: Some individuals and organizations are not aware of

the law's provisions and their implications, making it difficult for law
enforcement agencies to enforce the law. Additionally, some organizations
have been slow to adopt cybersecurity measures, making them vulnerable
to cyber attacks.

4. Coordination Issues: The coordination between various law enforcement

agencies and the private sector has been a significant challenge in
implementing the law. Coordination issues have led to delays in responding
to cyber threats, resulting in increased vulnerability to cyber attacks.

8
 5. Technical Challenges: The technical nature of cybercrime has made it
difficult for law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute cases
effectively. The anonymity of cybercriminals and the use of encryption
technologies have made it challenging to identify and apprehend offenders.

The implementation of the Philippine Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 has

faced several challenges, including constitutional issues, lack of resources, limited
awareness, coordination issues, and technical challenges. These challenges have
made it difficult for law enforcement agencies to effectively combat cybercrime in
the country. The government needs to address these challenges to ensure the
law's effective implementation and protect individuals and businesses from cyber
threats.

The Philippine Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 has had a significant impact on
cybercrime in the Philippines. The following are some of the positive impacts of
the law:

Deterrent Effect: The law has served as a deterrent to cybercriminals, as the

penalties for cybercrime are severe. Cybercriminals are now aware of the risks
involved in committing cybercrimes, and this has led to a reduction in the number
of cybercrime incidents in the country.

Increased Awareness: The law has increased awareness about cybercrime among
individuals and organizations, leading to improved cybersecurity practices.
Individuals and businesses are now more cautious about their online activities,
and many have taken steps to secure their online accounts and data.
Improved Investigative and Prosecution Capabilities: The law has provided law
enforcement agencies with the legal tools and framework necessary to investigate
and prosecute cybercrime cases effectively. The creation of the Cybercrime
Investigation and Coordination Center (CICC) has enhanced the coordination
between law enforcement agencies, leading to better investigation and
prosecution of cybercrime cases.

Increased Collaboration between the Government and Private Sector: The law
has encouraged collaboration between the government and private sector,
9
particularly internet service providers (ISPs). ISPs are now required to report any
cybercrime incidents to law enforcement agencies promptly. The government has
also collaborated with the private sector to develop cybersecurity awareness
campaigns and to develop measures to protect critical information infrastructure
from cyber threats.

Protection of Individuals and Businesses: The law has provided individuals and
businesses with legal remedies to seek redress for any cybercrime-related harm.
This has encouraged individuals and businesses to report cybercrime incidents,
leading to better monitoring and reporting of cybercrime incidents in the country.

However, there have also been some negative impacts of the law, particularly
regarding the limitations it places on freedom of expression and privacy rights.
Critics argue that the law's provisions are too broad and could be used to stifle
legitimate dissent and criticism.

Limitations on Freedom of Expression and Privacy: Some provisions of the law

have been criticized for violating freedom of expression and privacy rights
guaranteed under the Philippine Constitution. Critics argue that the law's
provisions are too broad and could be used to stifle legitimate dissent and
criticism.

Chilling Effect on Online Discourse: The law's provisions on libel and cyberbullying
have been criticized for having a chilling effect on online discourse. Some
individuals and organizations are now hesitant to express their opinions online for
fear of being accused of cyber libel or cyberbullying.

Lack of Clarity: Some provisions of the law are unclear, leading to confusion
among individuals and organizations about their rights and responsibilities under
the law. This lack of clarity has made it difficult for law enforcement agencies to
enforce the law effectively.

The Philippine Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 has had both positive and
negative effects since its enactment. While the law has improved cybersecurity
practices and enhanced investigative and prosecution capabilities, it has also
10
raised concerns about limitations on freedom of expression and privacy and a
chilling effect on online discourse. The government needs to address these
concerns to ensure that the law's implementation does not infringe on the
fundamental rights of individuals and organizations and also to increased
collaboration between the government and the private sector. The law remains an
essential tool for combatting cybercrime in the country, and its impact is likely to
continue to grow in the coming years.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Republic Act No. 10175, Philippine Cybercrime Prevention

Act of 2012 was enacted with the aim of addressing the growing threat of
cybercrime in the country. The law introduced various provisions to criminalize
cyber-related offenses, enhance law enforcement capabilities, and promote
cybersecurity awareness. Over the years, the law has been both praised for its
efforts to combat cybercrime and criticized for its perceived flaws and potential
impact on fundamental rights.

On the positive side, the law has provided a legal framework for addressing
cybercrime in the Philippines, and has facilitated law enforcement agencies in
investigating and prosecuting cyber offenders. It has also raised awareness about
the importance of cybersecurity and the need to protect critical information
infrastructure. The establishment of the Cybercrime Investigation and
Coordination Center (CICC) has been seen as a positive step towards coordinated
efforts in addressing cybercrime.

However, the law has also faced criticisms and controversies, including concerns
about its potential impact on freedom of expression, vague and overbroad
provisions, lack of safeguards for privacy, limited judicial review, and opposition
from civil society and human rights groups. These issues highlight the need for
continuous review and improvement of the law to ensure that it strikes a balance
between addressing cybercrime and protecting fundamental rights.

To fully realize the potential of the Philippine Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012,
there is a need for ongoing efforts to address the challenges faced in its

11
implementation, such as the need for capacity building among law enforcement
agencies, ensuring adequate safeguards for privacy and freedom of expression,
and fostering cooperation between government agencies, private sector entities,
and civil society organizations in addressing cybercrime.

The Republic Act No. 10175, Philippine Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
has been a significant step towards addressing cybercrime in the Philippines, but it
also requires continuous monitoring, review, and improvement to effectively to
combat cyber threats while safeguarding the rights and freedoms of individuals
and organizations in the digital age.

The main objective of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, also known
as Republic Act No. 10175, is twofold. Firstly, it aims to combat and eliminate the
actions of individuals who abuse technology to harm and unlawfully acquire
valuable information from others. Secondly, it seeks to safeguard innocent
individuals from becoming victims of abusive cybercrime activities.

References

Disini, et.al. vs. Secretary of Justice, et al.

G.R No. 203335, February 11, 2014

The Philippine Supreme Court Case In late 2012, a total of 15 petitions have
been filed before the Philippine Supreme Court by several individuals and groups,
some respectively seeking the nullity of certain questionable provisions and the
others praying for the revocation of the entire law itself. Having the same issues
relating to the same law, these petitions were consolidated by the Court and
deliberated as one case, the customary title of which is based on the first petition
on the list—Disini, et.al. vs. Secretary of Justice, et al. (2014). In October 9, 2012,
the law’s implementation was suspended due to an indefinite Temporary
Restraining Order issued by the Supreme Court. On February 18, 2014, the Court
finally issued a Decision upholding the constitutionality of the law. However, three
provisions thereof were categorically stricken down for being unconstitutional:
Section 4(c)(3) which refers to unsolicited commercial communications; Section 12
which refers to real-time collection of internet traffic data; and Section 19 which
12
refers to restricting or blocking access to computer data or the so-called “take
down clause.” In declaring Section 4(c)(3) as unconstitutional, the Court ruled
that, to prohibit the transmission of unsolicited ads would deny a person the right
to read his emails, even unsolicited commercial ads addressed to him. Commercial
speech is a separate category of speech which is not accorded the same level of
protection as that given to other constitutionally guaranteed forms of expression
but is nonetheless entitled to protection. The State cannot rob him of this right
without violating the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression.
Unsolicited advertisements are legitimate forms of expression. (p. 21) For Section
12, the Court indubitably criticized the law’s vagueness or lack of clear meaning
on the phrase “with due cause.” Thus, the Court continued, indeed, courts are
able to save vague provisions of law through statutory construction. But the
cybercrime law, dealing with a novel situation, fails to hint at the meaning it
intends for the phrase “due cause.” The Solicitor General suggests that “due
cause” should mean “just reason or motive” and “adherence to a lawful
procedure.” But the Court cannot draw this meaning since Section 12 does not
even bother to relate the collection of data to the probable commission of a
particular crime. It just says, “with due cause,” thus justifying a general gathering
of data. It is akin to the use of a general search warrant that the Constitution
prohibits. (p. 39)."

As for Section 7, the Court however qualified its ruling and stated that
though the provision is constitutional, this however should not apply to online
libel and online child pornography. Thus, the Court stated, the Solicitor General
points out that Section 7 merely expresses the settled doctrine that a single set of
acts may be prosecuted and penalized simultaneously under two laws, a special
law and the Revised Penal Code. When two different laws define two crimes, prior
jeopardy as to one does not bar prosecution of the other although both offenses
arise from the same fact, if each crime involves some important act which is not
an essential element of the other. With the exception of the crimes of online libel
and online child pornography, the Court would rather leave the determination of
the correct application of Section 7 to actual cases. (p. 33)

The Court however continued that

13
 Online libel is different. There should be no question that if the published
material on print, said to be libelous, is again posted online or vice versa, that
identical material cannot be the subject of two separate libels. The two offenses,
one a violation of Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code and the other a violation
of Section 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175 involve essentially the same elements and are in
fact one and the same offense. Charging the offender under both laws would be a
blatant violation of the proscription against double jeopardy. The same is true
with child pornography committed online. Section 4(c)(2) merely expands the
ACPA’s scope so as to include identical activities in cyberspace. As previously
discussed, ACPA’s definition of child pornography in fact already covers the use of
“electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any other means.” Thus,
charging the offender under both Section 4(c) (2) and ACPA would likewise be
tantamount to a violation of the constitutional prohibition against double
jeopardy. (p. 33)

Though several motions for reconsideration have been filed by separate groups
questioning the said Decision for various reasons, the Supreme Court has already
affirmed the same with finality.

The I LOVE YOU VIRUS OF 2000

The public is aware of the importance of legislation that supports police

efforts against computer crimes. Onel de Guzman, the Philippine dropout who, in
August 2000, created and unleashed a remarkably dangerous computer virus
called “I LOVE YOU”, cost several companies, governments, and citizens billions of
US dollars in damages. In August of the same year, charges against him in our
country were dismissed, mainly because we had not yet passed legislation
addressing the crimes he had committed. The public around the world is
justifiably outraged.

1. The “I LOVE YOU” Computer Virus, The virus was received in e-mail
inboxes in Hong Kong on 4 May, 2000, with subject “I LOVE YOU” and an
attachment “LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs.”. It erases or blurs the graphics and
data in the computer

14
and gets the contact addresses in the computer directory, and sends the same
email to all contacts listed in that directory. Once received and opened in another
computer, it replicates all that it did previously. The replication went on and on,
sweeping all computers where the email was received and opened, from Hong
Kong, to Europe, to the United States, infecting and damaging computers and
networks of small and big companies, private and government institutions. The
damage was about US$ 5.5 billion; some reports say US$ 10 billion.

2. Arrest of the Suspect An international manhunt was conducted; the

investigators traced the origin of the virus to its creator, a programming student
(Onel de Guzman) at the AMA Computer University in Manila. When arrested (11
May 2000), the suspect apologized to the public and said he had no intention of
causing such great harm. Government prosecutors filed cases against him, but
even at the first stage, the indictment was dismissed as there was no law
penalizing the act at the time (May 2000) in the Philippines (nullum crimen, sine
lege)!

3. Effect of the “I LOVE YOU” Virus The “I LOVE YOU” virus illustrated that a person
armed with a computer could, from a distant location, attack and/or disrupt
computers and networks worldwide and cause severe damage.

This whole episode points to the need for a domestic law to address a
particular criminal act, and international/bilateral legal instruments to give “no-
safe haven” to cyber-criminals (or would-be cyber-terrorists).
The Philippine Congress subsequently passed a law that penalizes
computer/cybercrimes, although it did not cover cyber-terrorism.

4. Congress’ Response In order to curb the threat posed by cybercrime, the

Philippine Congress enacted Republic Act (RA) 8792, otherwise known as the
“Electronic Commerce Act of 2000”. RA 8792 provides for the legal recognition
and admissibility of electronic data messages, documents and signatures. This was
signed into law on 14 June 2000. The salient features of the Act are as follows:

• Provides for the admissibility of electronic documents in court cases;

15
• Penalizes limited online crime, such as hacking, introduction of viruses and
copyright violations of at least Php100,000 and a maximum commensurate to the
damage incurred, and imprisonment of six months to three years, among others;
• Promotes e-commerce in the country, particularly in business-to-business and
business-to-consumer transactions whereby business relations are enhanced and
facilitated and consumers are able to find and purchase products online;
• Aims to reduce graft and corruption in government as it lessens personal
interaction between government agents and private individuals. RA 8792 is
considered the landmark law in the history of the Philippines as a legitimate
player in the global marketplace. It has placed the Philippines among the
countries penalizing cybercrime. Likewise, the Supreme Court drafted the Rules on
Electronic Evidence, which took effect on 1 August 2000, to emphasize the
admissibility of evidence in electronic form, subject to its authenticity and
reliability.

This restriction intends to safeguard against accepting evidence of doubtful

character.
We have also the Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998 (RA 8484) which
regulates the issuance and use of access devices, prohibiting fraudulent acts
committed and providing penalties and for other purposes; and, Philippine Central
Bank Circular 240 dated 7 April 2000 regulating the electronic banking services of
financial institutions.
While RA 8792 is already in place, it was found to have failed to address all
forms of cybercrime that are enumerated in the Budapest Convention on
Cybercrime of 2001, namely:

• Offences against confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and

systems which include illegal access, illegal interception, data interference, system
interference, misuse of devices;
• Computer-related offences which include computer-related forgery and
computer-related fraud;
• Content-related offences such as child pornography;
• Offences related to infringement of copyright and related rights.

16
Balancing Economic Benefit Versus Safeguard of Constitutional Rights

With the Decision of the Supreme Court, there appears, as of now, to be a

semblance of stability and finality on the legality of the Cybercrime Prevention Act
of 2012. However, notwithstanding the declarations of the Court, still, many
sectors continue to criticize the law because of its allegedly perceived
constitutional
violations.
Thus, considering these developments, the next question is: is the current
legal system of protection the best that the government can do?

There is no doubt that the spirit and intent of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of
2012 is noble, with many sectors saying that the passage of the law is long
overdue. It is worthy to note that it took almost 12 years and several bills filed in
Congress by countless lawmakers before the enactment of a real and more
comprehensive anti-cybercrime statute. If there is one thing that may be
conclusively presumed by the passage of this act, it is that this government has
finally acknowledged the perils of cybercrime and has committed to formulate
ways to curb or eradicate it.

However, with all its flaws, adding to it the people’s general negative reaction,
government should never get discouraged in working towards perfecting a law
that would sufficiently address this objective without however sacrificing
constitutional guarantees. If government lags on this initiative it is a given that
the economic effects would be perilous.

Now that the concept of cybercrime has already been embedded in the public
consciousness, this therefore is the perfect time and opportunity for Congress to
study and consider the enactment of a unified Computer and Cyber Code. This
Code should replace all the scattered laws relating to cybercrime and contain all
provisions relating to the lawful conduct of computer and internet usage, the
definition of cybercrimes and its penalties, and rules on its enforcement and
implementation. Nonetheless, in the drafting of this Code, government should
learn from history and set non-negotiable standards: First, the law should be

17
clear and devoid of vague and unequivocal provisions which may be subject to
various
legal interpretations or worse nullification for being against the void-for-vagueness
doctrine, which essentially provides that “a law is facially invalid if men of
common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its
application.” (Sps. Carlos S. Romualdez and Erlinda R. Romualdez vs. Commission
On Elections And Dennis Garay (2008) (p. 12)); second, it should not, at all
instances, contain
provisions which may directly or indirectly cause violations of our basic freedoms;
and third, the enforcement and implementation thereof should be reasonable and
within the limits provided for in procedural law. With a comprehensive but
integrated law following the said principles, it is with fervent hope that this will
harmoniously strike a balance between economic benefit, protection of
constitutional rights, and of course, the total obliteration of that bane called
cybercrime.

18