MANILA, Philippines - Adding its voice to the growing clamor against the
controversial Cybercrime Law, a prominent lawyers group on Friday filed
a petition for
prohibition with the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of
various provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
In a statement, lawyer Ma. Charito P. Cruz, president of the Philippine Bar Association, said: "The PBA conducted a sober analysis of the Cybercrime Law and found various provisions that raise serious constitutional issues. We decided to bring the matter to the Supreme Court so that these issues may be resolved.”
The PBA president stressed that “the Rule of Law is as essential in our physical world as it is in cyberspace. "
In the 61-page petition written and filed by PBA legal counsel Rodel A. Cruz, who previously served as Undersecretary in the Office of the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel, the lawyers organization called on the Supreme Court to place the Cybercrime Law under strict scrutiny, stating that "the same well-intentioned measure intended to suppress criminal behavior can stifle legitimate expression that is protected under our Constitution."
Cruz also serves as a PBA Trustee and chairs its Committee on Public Issues. He is joined in representing the PBA in the case by Ronald O. Solis, former head of the National Telecommunications Commission and immediate past President of the PBA.
The petition cautioned against the law serving as a tool to suppress free speech particularly during periods that "our society faces a dilemma" and when the "status quo is challenged' citing the possibility of access to online media outlets being restricted and blocked by the government on the pretext that it has libelous content. It argued that the law is a piece of "class legislation" that "discriminates against netizens and online journalists."
The petition also scored the provisions in the Cybercrime Law that are "void for being vague and overbroad." The PBA questioned the absence of clear definitions and legislated standards for obedience and enforcement of the law.
The lawyers argued that the "constitutional infirmities" the law cited "keep the people guessing" and give the law enforcers "unbridled discretion" in interpreting and enforcing a law that imposes stiff criminal liabilities.
The PBA also questioned various provisions allowing searches and seizures without a judicial warrant and warned against a "great potential for abuse of the law" with "awesome powers" granted to "agents of a political branch of government” who can act on the basis of "unilateral executive action" hinting at the law having the potential to be used to serve political ends.
It cited the possibility of internet communication involving even members of the High Court being placed under surveillance when the Executive Department determines that there is "due cause" to do so.
The PBA asked that the implementation of the Cybercrime Law be stopped in the meantime while the petition is under consideration by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is expected to deliberate on the growing number of petitions on Tuesday, October 9.
The filing of the latest petition by the PBA follows its long tradition of raising constitutional issues before the Supreme Court in defense of the Rule of Law.
In justifying its legal standing to file the case, the PBA cited its track record of defending individual rights against State abuse during the "dark days of martial law and the seeping emasculation of our institutions that came much later."
Previously, the PBA led the filing of cases to question the midnight appointment of the Chief Justice to the Supreme Court and midnight revamp of the leadership of the Armed Forces of the Philippines towards the end of the Arroyo Administration.
source: interaksyon.com
