Cybercrime Prevention act of Philippines

The Philippine Congress enacted Republic Act No. 10175 or “Cybercrime Prevention
Act of 2012” which addresses crimes committed against and through computer systems
on 12 September 2012. It includes penal substantive rules, procedural rules and also
rules on international cooperation.

Amendatory bills on cybercrime investigations are under work in the Philippines, with
new provisions being introduced on procedural powers, responsibilities, and extradition.
The aim is for the amendments to provide a structured approach for prosecutors and
investigators on cybercrime investigations and to further align national legislation with
the Budapest Convention.

In India, The Information Act, 2000 was enacted to regulate cyber crimes. The Act is
based on the United Nations Model law on electronic commerce, 1996 recommended
by the General Assembly of the United Nations in the year 1997. The Information Act,
2000 was later amended in the year 2008to improve certain provisions of the original
Act.

Cybercrime Prevention act of Philippines

The Fundamentals of the Act

Cybercrime also called computer crime is the use of a computer as an instrument to

further illegal ends such as committing fraud trafficking child pornography, intellectual
property violations, stealing identities or violation of privacy. The difference between
traditional criminal offences from cybercrime is the use of the computer in committing
such offences. Majorly cybercrime is an attack on the information of Individuals,
governments or corporations.

To combat and prevent cybercrime, the government of the Philippines introduced the
Republic Act No.101175 or Cyber Prevention Act of 2012. This Act was signed by the
President of the Philippines Mr. Benigno Aquino on September 12th of 2012. The
original goal of this Act was to penalize acts like cybersex, child pornography, identity
theft etc.

The key provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012

There are sixteen types of cybercrime covered under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of
2012. They are:

Interception of any non-public communication of computer data to, from, or within a

computer system by an unauthorised person.

Data Interference:
Unauthorized tampering with, destroying, deleting, or deteriorating computer data,
electronic documents, or electronic data messages, as well as the introduction or
transmission of viruses. This provision can also cover authorised activity if the person’s
behaviour went beyond the agreed-upon scope and resulted in the damages listed in
this provision.

System Interference:

Unauthorized interference with the operation of a computer or computer network,

including the introduction or transmission of viruses, by inputting, transmitting,
damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering, or suppressing computer data or
programmes, electronic data messages, or by deleting, deteriorating, altering, or
suppressing them. This provision can also cover authorised activity if the person’s
behaviour went beyond the agreed-upon scope and resulted in the damages listed in
this provision.

Misuse of devices:

Unauthorized use, possession, production, sale, procurement, importation, distribution,

or otherwise making available of gadgets, computer programmes, or other materials
developed or adapted for committing any of the acts listed in Republic Act 10175.
Unauthorized use of a computer password, access code, or similar data that allows the
entire or a portion of a computer system to be accessed with the intent of using it to
perpetrate any of the offences listed in Republic Act 10175.

Cybersquatting:

Acquisition of a domain name in bad faith on the internet to profit, deceive, harm
reputation, and prevent others from registering it. This includes trademarks that were
already registered at the time of registration, names of people other than the registrant,
and trademarks that were purchased with intellectual property interests in them. Those
who get domain names of prominent brands and individuals who in turn are used to
damage their reputation can be sued under this provision. Note that freedom of
expression and infringement on trademarks or names of persons are usually treated
separately. A party can exercise freedom of expression without necessarily violating the
trademarks of a brand or the names of persons.

Computer related Forgery:

Unauthorized input, alteration, or deletion of computer data that results in inauthentic

data with the intent that it be considered or acted on for legal purposes as if it were
authentic, regardless of whether the data is directly readable and intelligible; or the act
of knowingly using computer data that is the product of computer-related forgery as
defined here to perpetuate .

Computer-related Fraud:

Unauthorized access to, alteration of, or deletion of computer data or programmes, or

interference with the operation of a computer system, with the purpose to cause
damage.

Computer-related Identity Theft:

Unauthorized acquisition, use, abuse, transfer, possession, change, or deletion of an

individual’s identifying information, whether natural or legal.

Cybersex:

For favour or consideration, willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation,

directly or indirectly, of any lascivious presentation of sexual organs or sexual activity
via a computer system.

Child Pornography:

Unlawful or banned activities conducted through a computer system, as defined and

punished by Republic Act No. 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009.

Libel:

Acts of libel that are illegal or forbidden under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, and are committed using a computer system or any other similar means that
may be created in the future. Penal Code Revision According to Article 355 Libel is
defined as defamation of character by writings or other means. Libel committed by
writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical
exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any other similar means is punishable by
prison correctional for the minimum and medium periods, or a fine ranging from 200 to
6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to any civil action that the offended party may bring.

Aiding or Abetting in the commission of cybercrime:

Anyone who knowingly assists or abets the conduct of any of the offences listed in this
Act will be held accountable.

Attempt in the commission of cybercrime:

Any person who willfully attempts to commit any of the offences enumerated in this Act
shall be held liable.

All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special
laws, if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications
technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act.

Corporate Liability:

(Section 9): When any of the punishable acts herein defined are knowingly committed
on behalf of or for the benefit of a juridical person by a natural person acting either
individually or as part of an organ of the juridical person who has a leading position
within, based on: (a) a power of representation of the juridical person provided the act
committed falls within the scope of such authority; or (b) an authority to make decisions
on behalf of the juridical person. It also includes the commission of any of the penal acts
made possible due to the lack of supervision, provided that the act committed falls
within the scope of such authority; or(c) an authority to exercise control inside the
juridical person.

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012

Advantages

Cybersex, Cyberbullying, Child pornography are now offences and such offenders can
be punished. The children’s rights are protected by this Act.

All kinds of businesses using the internet as a medium are protected by this Act.

Provisions of this act now define the offence of cybersquatting and this deters people
from the act of cybersquatting.

Provisions that penalizes online identity theft. This provision protects the individual’s
privacy and its protection.

Disadvantages

Ambiguity in the terms given in the Act such as the term online libel is not defined
anywhere which can lead to different interpretations. Ambiguity can be seen in the
provision of real-time data collection.

The ambiguity in the Act may lead to the freedom of speech. The ambiguities like the
absence of a proper definition of online libel may lead to confusion. Sometimes the
expression of some truth may be misinterpreted as Libel. People may be restrained
from expressing themselves.

The implementation and execution of this Act yearly cost a huge cost to the
government.

Will new Cybercrime Law harm free speech?

A new Philippine “cybercrime” law drastically increases punishments for criminal libel
and gives authorities excessive and unchecked powers to shut down websites and
monitor online information, Human Rights Watch said today.

The criminal penalties and other restrictions of the law are a serious threat to free
expression in the nation. Several legal cases have been filed in the supreme court of
the nation and demanded that this law be declared unconstitutional because it violates
guarantees to free expression contained in the constitution of the Philippines and
Human Rights treaties ratified by the nation.

Brad Adams, executive director of Human Rights Watch’s Asia Division, said “The
cybercrime law needs to be repealed or replaced, “It violates Filipinos’ rights to free
expression and it is wholly incompatible with the Philippine government’s obligations
under international law.”

Conclusion

A comparison between the cybercrime prevention acts and the policies of Philippines
and India shows similarities to some extent and at the same time there are slight
differences. If the provision of cyber libel in both countries are compared, it can be seen
that both countries included this provision and immediately attracted the difference of
opinion from the netizens. In India, the Information Technology Act of 2000, Section
66A, defines the penalty for sending “offensive” messages through the computer,
mobile phones, or tablets. Because the government failed to define the term “offensive,”
it began to be used to suppress freedom of speech. In the year 2015, the Supreme
Court overturned this law. In the Philippines, the same uproar from the netizens was
heard when the cyber libel was introduced as an offence under the cyber prevention Act
2012. In Disini v. Secretary of Justice, the validity of the rule on online libel was
challenged (G.R. 203335, 11 February 2014). The Supreme Court, on the other hand,
determined that libel is not protected speech under the Constitution. As a result, the
internet libel is not unconstitutional. There may be different approaches to the provisions
of the Act by different countries, nevertheless to say that strict enforcement of the cyber
law is essential to combat cybercrimes. Technology crimes are not just limited to a
geographical region but it is a global phenomenon and stringent cyber laws are
essential across the globe.
References

https://cpbrd.congress.gov.ph/cpbrd.congress.gov.ph/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&layout=edit&id=798

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybercrime_Prevention_Act_of_2012#:~:text=The
%20Cybercrime%20Prevention%20Act%20of,the%20Internet%20in%20the
%20Philippines.

https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/20…

https://www.britannica.com/topic/cybe…

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on

practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life
practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and
various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal
content.

Categories: Cybercrime, Featured Student Assignments (LawSikho)

Tags: cybercrime, Cybercrime Prevention act of Philippines