The
e-petition, the first ever of its kind, was filled by members of the
National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, the Philippine Press
Institute and the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility.
"While many individuals and groups have already submitted petitions
asking the High Court to nullify parts of it or junk it altogether, we
believe it is necessary for the SC to hear as many voices as possible,
including that of the media community, which uses the Internet as a news
platform, relies heavily on electronic communication and whose members
are very active in the social media," said NUJP secretary general Rowena
Paraan in a letter.
Though the petitioners went
through the usual process of submitting hard copies of the petitions to
the Supreme Court, they also circulated the e-petition online and
invited interested signatories to participate by clicking on a link and
filling out an online form.
"This petition is
filed, partly as an electronic document, because some of the petitioners
are based outside of Metro Manila, with others based outside the
Philippines," the petitioners said.
The petitioners included 20 media organizations and 250 journalists and media practitioners.
Signatories to the petition included journalists from GMA News, GMA
News Online, ABS-CBN/ABS-CBNNews.com, Rappler.com, Mindanews, Philippine
Daily Inquirer, Interaksyon.com, SunStar, Daily Tribune,
Malaya/Business Insight, VERA Files, Far Eastern Broadcasting
Corporation, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, Center for
Community Journalism and Development, Peace and Conflict Journalism
Network Philippines, Philippine Center for Photojournalism, among
others.
Named respondents in the petition were
the executive secretary and the respective secretaries of the
Departments of Justice, Interior and Local Government, and Budget and
Management; as well as the respective heads of the Philippine National
Police and the National Bureau of Investigation.
The Cybercrime Prevention Act came into effect on Wednesday.
The Cybercrime Prevention Act came into effect on Wednesday.
The petition
In their 27-page petition, the journalists wanted the High Court to
declare as unconstitutional, if not the law in its entirety, at least
the following sections of the Cybercrime act:
-
Sec. 4(c)(4) (Libel); Sec. 5(a) (Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of
Cybercrime); Sec. 6 (inclusion of all felonies and crimes within
coverage of the law), which the petitioners said violates the freedom of
expression.
- Sec. 7 (Liability under Other
Laws), which they said violates a person's constitutional guarantee of
protection against double jeopardy.
- Sec. 12
(Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data), which violates a person's right
to privacy of communication and correspondence.
-
Secs. 14 (Disclosure of Computer Data) and 15 (Search, Seizure and
Examination of Computer Data), 19 (Restricting or Blocking Access to
Computer Data), and 20 (Non-Compliance), which is allegedly in violation
of the separation of powers "as judicial powers are unduly delegated to
the secretary of Justice, PNP, and the NBI."
-
Sec. 24 (Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center) and
26(a)(Powers and Functions), which give the Cybercrime Investigation and
Coordinating Center the power to formulate a national cybersecurity
plan.
The petitioner argued this power should properly fall within the authority of Congress and not an administrative agency.
They also said the specific provisions "unlawfully delegate" to police
officers the authority to issue orders that should only be "within the
scope and sphere of judicial powers and where non-compliance is
penalized as a crime."
The petitioners wanted
the court not only to prohibit the respondents from implementing the
law, but also to prohibit them from formulating the accompanying
Implementing Rules and Regulations.
The
petitioners said giving the Department of Justice and Department of
Interior and Local Government the authority to promulgate the
implementing rules and regulation (IRR) would be an "unlwaful delegation
of legislative powers and result in arbitrariness."
"The petitioners stand to suffer grave and irreparable injury with no speedy or adequate remedy at law," they said.
They also said the implementation should be stopped because public funds to be appropriated under the law could be wasted in case the law is eventually annulled. — DVM, GMA News
source: gmanetwork.com
