Supreme Court stops Cybercrime Law indefinitely

A day before the temporary restraining order (TRO) on the implementation of the Cybercrime Prevention Law lapses, the Supreme Court on Tuesday issued an indefinite extension on the TRO following clamor from petitioners and the general public.

The 120-day TRO was extended “until further orders from the court,” Supreme Court spokesperson Gleo Guerra said in text message.

The TRO is the last mechanism holding off the implementation of the controversial law, which has been scored by critics and civil society groups as an assault on Filipinos’ freedom of speech.

The high tribunal finished hearing the oral arguments of petitioners and the Solicitor General on the law last week, after which both camps were giv

source : interaksyon.com

SC releases audio of arguments on Cybercrime Law

MANILA, Philippines - For the first time in its 112-year history, the Supreme Court (SC) has released to the public a recording of its oral argument.

The SC public information office announced the audio recording of Tuesday’s oral argument on the constitutionality of Republic Act 10175 or Cybercrime Prevention Act can be downloaded from the high court’s website, www.sc.judiciary.gov.ph.

“You can now listen to or download the mp3 of the entire oral argument on the Cybercrime Act at the microsite for the Cybercrime Act orals at the SC website,” the SC PIO said in a text message to reporters.

Oral arguments of the high tribunal have been open to the public but recording of the hearings is prohibited under SC rules.

Even the media are barred from recording the proceedings in the high court. Reporters are not allowed to use audio or video recorders while covering oral arguments.

Proceedings of the SC in its session hall are strictly closed door. Not even the clerk of court is allowed inside the chamber when the justices are deliberating on cases during their full-court sessions.



 Results of the deliberations are only relayed by the chief justice or acting chair of the SC to the clerk of court after the proceedings.

This is why court observers viewed the move to make public recording of the oral argument as a positive step toward transparency in the high court.

Meanwhile, petitioners against RA 10175 yesterday lauded the SC justices for their deep understanding of issues surrounding the questioned law.

Lawyer Jose Jesus Disini Jr., one of the petitioners who argued for the unconstitutionality of some provisions in the cybercrime law before the high tribunal, believes the justices took time to understand how the Internet works to be able to understand the contentions cited in the petitions.

“Their questions were very relevant. They did their homework,” he said.

The 68-year-old Associate Justice Roberto Abad, who is tasked to write the court’s decision on the case, admitted during the public hearing that he has a Facebook account. The youngest member of the high court, Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, has a Twitter account.

Also during the hearing, justices talked about the 840,842 followers on Twitter of actor Derek Ramsey and the popular Twitter user “Professional Heckler.”

The collection of private data by websites Google and Amazon were also discussed during the debate.

Also cited in the hearing was Christopher Lao, the lawyer who received enormous criticisms online after berating a traffic officer he had taken to task for not being informed of flooding in a street.

In the early part of the debate, an exchange between Justice Leonen and former colleague at the UP College of Law, professor Harry Roque Jr. on the issue of cybersex triggered laughter among the observers.

“Can there be sexual activity without favor?” Leonen asked Roque, who laughed as he replied: “I take it as a rhetorical question, your honor.”

source: philstar.com

Supreme Court issues TRO on Anti-Cybercrime Act

MANILA, Philippines- The Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously voted for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) stopping the enforcement of the controversial Cybercrime Prevention Act. All 14 justices were present.

A series of protest actions have been staged in front of the Supreme Court premises on Padre Faura Street in Manila, including one today while the justices were in an en banc session.

The protesting groups, which are primarily against a provision in the law that criminalizes libel in cyberspace and grants the Justice department powers to block–without court order–access to data and potentially take down sites on a mere prima facie finding of violations of RA 10175, cheered when they heard the news, but remained adamant that the law be repealed.

Republic Act 10175, dubbed by critics as “e-Martial,” was signed into law by President Benigno Aquino III on September 12, the month of the 40th anniversary of the September 21, 1972 imposition by former President Ferdinand Marcos of Martial Law.

As many as 15 petitions to stop the enforcement of the law have been filed with the Supreme Court. Besides the petitions and the journalist-led rallies, a group of “hacktivists” calling themselves Anonymous Philippines also defaced a number of government sites, in protest of the new law. The government appealed to hackers to spare such sites, which include vital information needed by the public. The hackers, however, disowned the defacement of certain sites like Project NOAH that provides vital weather data.

Bayan Muna partylist Rep. Teodoro Casino Jr., who on Monday filed the 15th petition, said there was no question in the law’s goal of addressing cybrecrime, which has now become rampant.

Casino, however, said the law’s libel provisions that give the government surveillance power over the activities of a person using the Internet infringe on the netizen’s privacy and freedom of expression.

The TRO was issued as the high tribunal deliberated en banc on 15 petitions from various groups and personalities from the media, lawyers’ and free-speech advocates’ sectors, all seeking a halt to implementation of the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

Earlier petitions were filed by the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) assisted by FLAG lawyers, the Philippine Bar Association, the Ateneo Human Rights Center and a bloggers’ group, among others.

Earlier on Monday, two other petitions were filed, one by Casiño’s fellow Bayan Muna solon Neri Javier Colmenares and lawyer Edsel Tupaz, and another by the National Press Club.

The most contested provisions across all petitions are in Sections 4,5,6,7, 12 and 19, or the so-called “take-down” provision that most constitutionalists deem the most dangerous to civil rights. It grants the Justice department the power to block access to data, and potentially shut down web sites, on a mere prima facie finding of a violation of RA 10175. This, even without a court order.

Constitutional rights infringed

The PBA petition said among the constitutional rights infringed by the law are those against double jeopardy and bill of attainder, besides the provision that automatically makes the penalties on e-libel and other violations one degree higher, compared to libel in the traditional media.

Casiño, who has just filed his candidacy for senator, told reporters that their petition to nullify the law is similar to the previous pleas against the law’s “e-libel” provisions, Section 19 or the “take down clause,” and the authority given to the Department of Justice to apprehend suspectede cyber criminals even without warrants of arrest.

According to the lawmaker, even people who text and call using cellular phones with Information Communications Technology or ICT device could be accused of e-libel.

Dubbed by critics as “e-Martial Law,” the act was signed by President Benigno Aquino III last September 12 days before the commemoration of the 40th year of the September 21, 1972 imposition of Martial Law by President Ferdinand Marcos.

In its 61-page petition, PiFA and Casiño appealed to the high court to require the government to cease and desist from implementing the law while the petition is pending.

The act violates the freedom of speech, expression and of the press, unreasonable searches and seizures, right to privacy, due process, equal protection of the law, among others, according to the petitioners.

They added that the law “is constitutionally infirm on its face for being vague and overbroad,” a criticism shared by most other petitioners.

source: interaksyon.com

Philippine Bar Association files petition vs Cybercrime Law

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

Sec 19 of Cybercrime Law opens up Internet to ‘cyber frame-ups’, experts say

MANILA, Philippines — The administrator of the Facebook page called Pixel Offensive, which posts graphics containing statements against the Cybercrime law, woke up Friday morning and received news that the Manila Bulletin website was defaced the day prior, and has been redirecting users to his page.

“Nagulat talaga ako, (I was surprised)” the page administrator told InterAksyon.com in a phone interview. “Ang concern namin, baka kami ang ituro na kami ang nag-hack (Our immediate concern is, they might think it was us), and that might indirectly trample on our right to freedom of expression.”

Pixel Offensive is a group of graphic artists which, in the past week, has been producing graphic materials and statements calling for the repeal of certain provisions in the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

One of their graphics, which parodies the popular Darwinian theory of evolution, has been used by torrent hosting site The Pirate Bay in expressing support for Filipinos rallying against the new law.

According to a report posted by a blogger named Bon Talampas, the Manila Bulletin homepage on Thursday automatically redirected to the Pixel Offensive page upon access. Based on his screenshot, the title bar also bore the words “Remove R.A. 10175.”

Other local media websites, such as that of Tempo and Balita, were also hacked and carried the same title bar but not the redirect.

The Pixel Offensive admin was adamant about the apparent frame-up, calling the move a “diversionary tactic” by people aiming to break up the Anti-Cybercrime Law protesters.

“We categorically deny the hacking. We support the media, and we fight for the freedom of expression, but that doesn’t mean that we’d hack into websites,” the admin said.

“Hacking is a form of resistance, but we only do graphics here in Pixel Offensive, we’re using visuals as a form of resistance,” he added.

The ‘prima facie’ problem

The Pixel Offensive incident succinctly highlights the danger of Sec. 19 of the Cybercrime law, according to lawyer and netizen Atty. Francis Acero, because it relies merely on prima facie evidence for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to issue a restrict or block order against a certain website.

Prima facie has been regarded as the lowest standard of evidence by legal experts, since it allows for assessment of evidence merely at face value. By merely appearing to have committed a cybercrime, the DOJ, which the new law has given “powers already outside its usual jurisdiction”, can issue an order restricting or blocking access to a system or website.

“It’s a perfect illustration of the danger that could happen with that takedown provision,” Acero said. “Anyone who has an axe to grind with Pixel Offensive could have easily done that.”

In an earlier interview, digital forensics expert Drexx Laggui said prima facie evidence is easily faked particularly using computers, since the nature of the digital world is far more nebulous than the physical realm.

“A highly skilled person who wants to frame another person could just create a lot of prima facie evidence against him, or an entire community of people,” he pointed out, adding that computer crimes need more thorough investigation in order to pinpoint the perpetrators behind them.

With the new Cybercrime law, warrantless search and seizure of computer data and website can therefore become more widespread since the online environment allows for easy fabrication of prima facie evidence.

Cyber frame-ups

Recent incidents actually prove Laggui right. In July, the National Bureau of Investigation was able to uncover a “sophisticated, vicious, and concerted” cyber attack against a Canadian mining firm operating in Mindanao, which involved thorough fabrication of company documents to purport murder and other crimes against small-scale miners in Zamboanga del Sur.

In the case, the NBI concluded that “the purported emails could not have originated from TVIRD or any of its officers or employees,” and suggested the filing of libel and falsification of private documents charges against the suspects.
Just this week, the data-processing servers of the Department of Science and Technology’s Project NOAH (Nationwide Operational Assessment of Hazards) fell victim to a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack, momentarily crippling its weather analysis operations.

The attack occurred at the same time that local hacktivists, in protest of the Cybercrime law, were launching massive DDoS offensives against several government websites , making them apparent culprits for the Project NOAH attack.

Local hacktivist groups, however, denied any involvement in the attack.

The DOJ had already ordered the NBI to go after the hacktivists involved in the string of defacements and DDoS attacks leveled against government websites, pursuant to the new Cybercrime law, which punishes hacking and misuse of hacking devices.

Laggui, however, pointed out that there could be wisdom in the inclusion of Section 19 in the Cybercrime law, but only in “exigent circumstances.”

“There are cases where data or evidence are in very real danger of being deleted or purged, or where somebody’s life is in danger, so [acting merely on prima facie evidence] in this case could be justified,” Laggui said.

“But it should be clarified in the implementing rules and regulations, that it should only apply for those circumstances,” he added.

source: interaksyon.com 

Lawmakers buckle under social media pressure vs ‘flawed’ Cybercrime Law

MANILA, Philippines — To appease enraged Internet users protesting over contentious provisions of the newly enacted Cybercrime Prevention Act, lawmakers who voted in favor of the passage of the bill are now seeking to make amends — both emotionally and legally — as pressure from social media users continue to mount Wednesday.




The latest to join the growing list of Senators seeking to amend the Cybercrime Law is the measure’s author itself, Sen. Edgardo Angara, who appealed to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to hold off on the implementation of Section 19 of the law.

Section 19 gives the DOJ sweeping powers to “restrict or block access” to computer systems or websites found to be prima facie in violation of the provisions of the law.

“I will file an amendatory bill on Monday to include the principle of search and seizure order under the Constitution,” Angara said.

Similar moves were observed from others who voted in favor of the law during Senate deliberations, including Sen. Pia Cayetano who, while pointing out that no opposition to the questionable provisions were raised before, promised to make things right in the name of Internet freedom.

“It’s impossible to predict every issue that will arise w/ every bill. But I’ll address it as soon as I can,” Cayetano tweeted.

Earlier, Sen. Chiz Escudero, who is gunning for re-election during the mid-term elections next year, backtracked and said that while he voted in favor of the bill, he now acknowledges that the insertion of the libel provision was a “mistake.”

Escudero admitted that having libel included in the acts punishable by the law was a “personal oversight” on his part, and in the same breath flouted his stance as a principal proponent of a bill that aims to decriminalize libel.

Escudero’s comments were later called out by Sen. Vicente Sotto III — who, during a spate of online comments regarding the alleged plagiarism in his anti-Reproductive Health bill speech, cited the Cybercrime law as a means to silence his critics — told the younger legislator to rush the decriminalization of libel instead of pushing to strike out the specific provision on it.

“Mas mahirap pa yung gusto nya eh, ipasa na lang yung decriminalization, meron na nun sa committee nya eh [in Escudero’s Committee on Human Rights and Justice], (What he want is harder to do; why not just the pass the decriminalization (of libel), which is already in his committee)”  Sotto pointed out.

Digital lobby
Apart from various petitions filed before the Supreme Court calling for the repeal of certain sections of the law, Filipino Internet users have been quite active in making their stand regarding the law known to all — particularly the Senators who voted for the passage of the bill.

On Tuesday, or a day before the law takes full effect, Facebook users blacked out their profile pictures and posted status updates redacted by black horizontal bars, as if demonstrating how the new law could muzzle free speech online.

Various websites, such as the InterAksyon.com homepage, have also blacked out their content to join protests against the controversial law.

And at least one online initiative is keeping count of the legislators’ moves and pronouncements: InternetFreedom.ph, put up by the Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance and The New Media, a digital marketing blog owned by TV5′s digital publishing business unit head Carlo Ople.

“It’s a people-powered digital lobby to amend the Cybercrime [Law],” Ople told InterAksyon. In the website, the group keeps a virtual scoreboard of which senators have voted for the passage of the bill, and which have already made public statements about amending it.

As of posting time, the following Senators have manifested intent to amend the law: Teofisto “TG” Guingona III, the lone oppositor to the bill; Escudero; Cayetano; Angara; Koko Pimentel; and Antonio Trillanes IV.

Ople said the photos of the senators that appear on the site are linked to their social networking acounts “so people can tweet them” and to put “pressure on Senators to amend the Cybercrime Law.”

“In the last 24 hours, it racked over 80,000 unique visits and it’s constantly climbing,” Ople said. “More views [means] more pressure for senators.”

Ironic

Ironically, the Liberal Party, to which President Benigno Aquino III belongs, had indicated that during the Senatorial elections next year. they will be stepping up the use of social media — one of the many online mediums that the Cybercrime Law seeks to regulate.

“There will be fewer rallies this election. It will be more on new media, social media, mass media. Piling-pili ang mga rallies,” said Aurora Rep. Sonny Angara, son of Sen. Angara, who is part of the Senate administration ticket for next year’s elections.

President Aquino, after “thorough examination” by the office of Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa, signed the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 on September 12, or mere days before the 40th anniversary of the proclamation of Martial Law in 1972.

Netizens, pundits, and lawyers have gone on to describe the new measure as “E-Martial Law,” as it seeks to curtail Filipinos’ civil liberties as enshrined in the constitution.

Malacañang, however, claimed that despite the presence of contentious provisions, Filipinos’ civil liberties are safe and would be protected under the new law.

source: interaksyon.com

Hackers attack more govt websites as Cybercrime Law goes live

MANILA, Philippines — As the Cybercrime Prevention Act goes into full effect on Wednesday, October 3, local hacktivist groups changed their mode of protest by launching Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attacks against several government websites.

As of early Wednesday morning, government websites such as that of the National Bureau of Investigation, Department of Foreign Affairs, Department of Health, Senate, Social Security System, and the Official Gazette were rendered inaccessible to Internet users.


Malacañang, however, denied that the Official Gazette was a victim of a DDoS attack, saying heightened interest for the controversial bill was the reason for the surge in the website’s server requests.

“Folks, according to @govph team, they had to tweak some server settings to optimize site to accommodate the surge in traffic,” Deputy Presidential Spokesperson Abigail Valte tweeted. “Interest in full text of RA10175 mostly driving traffic.”

On its Facebook account, PrivateX, one of the local hacking groups responsible for defacing government websites in the past week, posted a DDoS tool where interested Internet users can jump in and join in overwhelming government servers.

“Let’s support anonymous, if you have your vpn with you.. turn it on
kung wala po kayong vpn, it’s a dare to us netizens. it’s like sacrificing for our country,” the group said.

DDoS is a form of cyber attack used by hacking groups to take down particular websites, which involves overwhelming the website’s server by executing external commands from a number of terminals, subsequently crippling the server indefinitely.

Unlike site defacements, DDoS attacks leave no trace of intrusion into the website and are virtually untraceable because it uses a huge number of computer systems and users to carry out the attack.

This means that by making the tool available to the public — and encouraging them to use a Virtual Private Network to mask their true IP address and location — the hacktivist groups could have several computers on its employ to overwhelm government website servers.



As of posting time, the official website of the President has installed an anti-DDoS tool after going down and being rendered inaccessible earlier in the day. The DDoS tool is currently targeting the website of Senator Vicente Sotto III, the one who allegedly inserted the libel provision in the controversial law.

While the new law punishes misuse of devices for purposes of a DDoS attack, having a distributed network of systems used for the attack means law-enforcement agencies would have a harder time going after its originators.

The same method was used by international hacking group Anonymous in crippling the services of Mastercard, Visa, and PayPal in late 2010, after the three companies blocked people from donating to WikiLeaks, a group that leaked confidential US government communications.

The government had earlier denounced the defacement of government websites by local hacking groups, saying they do very little in terms of making their issues known.

“There are proper avenues for expressing their indignation rather than committing cybercrime to protest a bill that aims to prevent cybercrime,” said Information and Communications Technology Office (ICTO) Executive Director Louis Casambre.

“[The defacements] underscore the existing vulnerabilities in some government websites that need to be addressed in a national cybersecurity plan,” Casambre added. “In the meantime, we would like to request our government systems administrators to review their own policies and utilize industry best practices when it comes to cybersecurity.”

Signed into law by President Benigno Aquino III on September 12, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 seeks to curb the increasing incidents of cybercrimes in the country, particularly those involved in organized cybercrime syndicates.

Violators face a punishment of prison mayor or reclusion temporal and/or a fine (between P200,000 to P1,000,000) depending on the offense as stated under the new law.

Aside from defacements and DDoS attacks, protests against contentious provisions of the Cybercrime Law took the form of black-out campaigns in social media sites as well as street protests in the Supreme Court.

source: interaksyon.com

New Internet Law Gets Hostile Reception in Philippines

MANILA — A new Internet law that took effect in the Philippines on Wednesday could lead to imprisonment for common activities like sharing Facebook and Twitter posts, critics say.

The new law, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which was signed by President Benigno S. Aquino III on Sept. 12, sets penalties for several computer-related crimes, including child pornography, identity theft, online fraud and illegally accessing computer networks. 

But critics are concerned about the law’s provisions related to libel, which in the Philippines is a criminal offense that can result in imprisonment. Harry S. Roque, president of Media Defense South East Asia, an advocacy organization, said the law applied the existing legal definition of libel to the online activities of individuals, meaning that if a comment on Facebook or Twitter were deemed libelous, the writer of the item and those who shared it could be prosecuted. 

“It exposes Internet users to prosecution,” said Mr. Roque, a law professor at the University of the Philippines. “You can be sued. You can be forced to post a bond. You will need to get a lawyer. You can imagine the mayhem this can cause.” 

“The Philippines has been a leader in Internet freedom,” Mr. Roque continued. “This law makes the Philippines at par with other oppressive regimes in Southeast Asia that imprison and intimidate bloggers.”

There has been considerable public outcry against the law in the weeks leading up to its implementation. Hackers have attacked the Web sites of the president, both houses of Congress and a variety of government agencies. On Wednesday, some Facebook users replaced their profile pictures with black silhouettes and bloggers created blank posts to protest the law, while others took to the streets, staging a demonstration in front of the Supreme Court. 

Some government offices have also struggled with the new law. “Foul words against our police officers can be used as evidence now to file a case against you in a court of law,” a post by the Philippine National Police on its official Facebook page read Monday, in response to a negative comment by a visitor to the site. Police officials later apologized and removed the post. 

Philippine senators who voted for the law, many of whom are up for re-election next year, have been scrambling to address critics’ concerns. Some senators have had to admit that they did not actually read the law before voting for its passage. Senator Francis G. Escudero acknowledged on Tuesday on his Web site that he had not read the provision of the law dealing with online libel, but said he had introduced a bill to decriminalize libel. 

Senator Edgardo J. Angara, who voted for the new law, said Wednesday — the same day he filed his certificate of candidacy for re-election — that he supported amending the legislation. 

“Not all the laws that we pass are perfect,” Mr. Angara told reporters. “At least in this case we are responsive.” 

A spokesman for Mr. Aquino sought Wednesday to calm public fears after the barrage of protests and an announcement by Justice Secretary Leila de Lima that her department would be hiring 150 investigators to enforce the new law. 

“Our Constitution is clear and uncompromising in the civil liberties it guarantees all our people,” said the spokesman, Edwin Lacierda. “As the basic law, its guarantees cannot, and will not, be diminished or reduced by any law passed by Congress.” 

At least nine petitions have been filed with the Supreme Court seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent the prosecution of anyone under the law. The court has said it will rule on the matter next week. 

In a study released before the law was passed, the American group Freedom House ranked the Philippines sixth in the world in terms of Internet freedom. 

source: nytimes.com

Journalists join fray with e-petition against Cybercrime Law

In a case of the medium being the message, more than 200 journalists and media groups on Wednesday submitted an electronic petition (e-petition) to the Supreme Court, asking it to nullify the controversial Cybercrime Prevention Act.

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 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

Anti-cybercrime law to test Sereno court’s tech knowledge, independence

The controversy over the Cybercrime Prevention Act will serve as the first test for the Supreme Court (SC) under Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, lawyers said Tuesday.

Lawyer Argee Guevarra of the Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance said the petitions filed before the high court questioning the constitutionality of Republic Act (RA) 10175 will gauge how much the SC justices can appreciate modern forms of communication.

“It requires a lot of comprehension of how these technologies work to be able to come up with an intelligent decision on these petitions. I doubt if our justices even have Facebook or Twitter accounts,” Guevarra said in a phone interview.

He added that senior justices may have to seek the help of some “friends of the court” to be able to have sufficient grasp of the Internet, which is at the center of the controversy involving the Anti-Cybercrime Law.

“Siguro dapat silang maghanap ng younger lawyers who have the expertise on e-commerce to help them understand the intricacies of this technology,” the lawyer said.

Guevarra further said that Sereno—the youngest SC chief justice to be appointed in this century—will definitely play a key role in the deliberations on the constitutionality of RA 10175.

“She [Sereno] can identify well with these new technologies because of her youth. More senior justices, however, may have traditional views on these new forms of media. The chief justice should be able to help bridge this generation gap,” he said.

The SC failed on Tuesday to issue a temporary restraining order on the implementation of RA 10175 despite seven petitions already filed before the high court questioning the law’s constitutionality.

Because of this, the Cybercrime Prevention Act—which gives the government the authority to access and block certain computer data—took effect on Wednesday amid a slew of protests against it.

‘No need to be tech-savvy’

Lawyer Theodore Te, who teaches criminal law at the University of the Philippines, meanwhile said that the SC justices do not necessarily have to be tech-savvy to be able to rule correctly on the petitions against RA 10175.

“They [the justices] just have to be aware that this totally new platform exists, and to determine if online expression should be governed by the same constitutional guarantees that govern traditional forms of expression,” he said in a separate interview.

He however agreed that questions on the constitutionality of the Cybercrime Prevention Act will be the “first important test” of Sereno’s leadership of the high court.

“She [Sereno] is leader of the court. I would expect that she would set the direction on how the court will rule on this,” he said.

On Saturday, constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ, also said in a blog post, that the SC’s decision on petitions against the anti-cybercrime law “should tell us more about the mind of the new chief justice.”

Bernas also described the new law as “frightening” due to threat it poses on freedom of expression and on the privacy of communication.

A test of independence

Guevarra, for his part, also considers the controversy surrounding RA 10175 as a test of Sereno’s independence.

“The vote of the chief justice will be indicative of her mindset, whether she is progressive or will she just toe the administration’s line,” he said.

“Would the chief justice interpret the law based on jurisprudence or just agree with Malacañang’s pronouncements that this law is good for us?” he added.

Sereno, who was appointed by President Benigno Aquino III as the first woman chief justice last August, has repeatedly vowed to be independent throughout her 18-year term.

The chief justice had also promised to make the SC more technologically savvy, saying the Philippines’ young population is no longer shaped by school, family, and traditional media, but by the "insistent and intrusive influence of social media.” — DVM, GMA News

source: gmanetwork.com

Bloody Monday, Black Tuesday: Online, offline protests build up vs Cybercrime Law

MANILA, Philippines — Local hacktivist groups added to the growing list of government-related websites defaced in protest of the Cybercrime Prevention Act in an initiative they called “Bloody Monday.”

This as concerned Filipino Internet users called for netizens to black out their profile photos in social media sites and the template of their websites in a protest action called “Black Tuesday.” Groups are also mounting street protests in front of the Supreme Court to protest the law.

The mounting protests come a day before October 3, or the official date when the new Cybercrime Law comes into full effect.

Easing into midnight on Monday, known hacking groups such as PrivateX and Anonymous #OccupyPhilippines replaced homepages of government websites such as that of the Department of Health (DOH) and the Department of Interior and Local Government (DOH) with images and text calling for the repeal or revision of the Cybercrime law.

“We ask for a revision of the said bill for the betterment of the Filipino denizens,” a line from the groups’ deface page read.

Among the websites defaced on Monday include:

Department of Health (http://www.doh.gov.ph)
DOH’s SmokeFree Website (http://www.smokefree.doh.gov.ph/)
Twitter and Facebook accounts of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) (@DSWDServe)
Maritime Training Council (http://www.mtc.gov.ph)
Provincial Government of Batangas (http://www.batangas.gov.ph/)
Optical Media Board (http://omb.gov.ph/)
Pilipinas Anti-Piracy Team (http://papt.org.ph)
Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (http://www.ipophil.gov.ph/)
National Telecommunications Office (http://ntc.gov.ph)
DOST’s One-Stop Information Shop for Technologies in the Philippines (http://www.osist.dost.gov.ph/)
Philippine Nuclear Research Institute (http://pnri.dost.gov.ph)
Department of the Interior and Local Government (http://www.dilg.gov.ph/)


While some website administrators were quick to put their agency’s website to its normal form, some affected sites and accounts — such as that of the DSWD — remain to be brandishing the logo of global hacktivist collective Anonymous.

Anonymous is a decentralized global “hacktivist” group that engages in high-profile hacking and defacement activities to protest certain political issues. The global group, however, has yet to confirm affiliation with the group using its name in the Philippines.

Monday’s attack is just the latest in the string of defacements mounted by the local hacking groups, following the attack on the NTC on Sunday night and the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and other sites on Wednesday night. ()


Meanwhile, netizens as led by the Philippine Internet Freedom Association (PIFA) have begun blacking out their social media profiles, blogs, and websites in support of the mounting protests against the controversial law.

Aside from the online blackout protests, the group is also taking their dissent offline by trooping to the Supreme Court on Tuesday morning.

“To safeguard these rights and freedoms, we, the members of the Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance (PIFA), ask you to leave the virtual world for a while, and join BLACK TUESDAY, a SILENT and PEACEFUL PROTEST against CYBER MARTIAL LAW,” the group’s Facebook event invite read.

Even Pirate Bay, arguably the most popular torrent-hosting site in the world, has joined the Philippines in protesting the new law as it brandished a locally made protest banner on its homepage on Monday.

The protests run parallel with the petitions filed by concerned parties calling for the repeal of certain contentious provisions in the Act before the Supreme Court, the latest addition to with was the petition submitted by Kabataan Partylist Rep. Raymond Palatino, one of the more vocal oppositors of the Act when it was still being deliberated in Congress.

source: interaksyon.com

'Black days' continue as SC fails to act on TRO pleas vs 'e-Martial Law'

MANILA, Philippines - Black days will continue among thousands of Filipino netizens as several groups protesting against the Cybercrime Prevention Act failed on Tuesday to have the Supreme Court stop the law's implementation, which will begin on Wednesday, October 3.

The high court did not issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Republic Act 10175, dubbed by critics as "e-Martial," which President Benigno Aquino signed last September 12, the month of the 40th anniversary of the September 21, 1972 imposition by former President Ferdinand Marcos of Martial Law.

The seven petitions against R.A. 10175 "are up for further study" by the high court,  according to Maria Victoria Gleoresty Sp. Guerra, acting chief of the Supreme Court's Public Information Office.

Several protest-actions led by the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), National Union of Journalists in the Philippines, the Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance, and social media groups dubbed "Black Tuesday" were staged in front of the Supreme Court premises on Padre Faura Street in Manila while the justices were in an en banc session. 

The groups were primarily against a provision in the law that criminalizes libel in cyberspace.

Bayan Muna partylist Rep. Teodoro Casino Jr. said there was no question in the law's goal of addressing cybrecrime, which has now become rampant.

Casino, however, said the law's libel provisions that give the governmenmt surveillance power over the activities of a person using the Internet infringe on the netizen's privacy and freedom of expression. 

Bayan secretary general Renato Reyes Jr. on Tuesday said that his group "was disppointed" with the high court's inaction on  the petitions.

"The fight is not over though since no outright denial has been made," Reyes said in a statement.  However, Reyes said that without a TRO from the high court, "the new law takes effect tomorrow."

"We call for continued vigilance and the aggressive exercise of our freedoms. Keep posting, keep blogging, stay active on the issueon and offline," he added. 

Black protest, amendments

The "black protest" has continued in cyberspace. Facebook users changed their profiles into black. Social media users also posted on Facebook a status update containing a black horizontal bar followed by a text that read: “[status update blocked.] (by RA . 10175).”


The blacked-out status updates have already gone viral and are being posted today by practically every Facebook user who is against the law.

As protests were staged in front of the Supreme Court, several lawmakers on Tuesday began the initiative to amend the cybercrime law in Congress by proposing to take out someits provisions.

Filing House Bill 6613, Casino and Rep. Raymond Palatino of Kabataan partylist sought to repeal thelaw's controversial sections, which many critics say will impinged on thebasic rights of Internet users.

“Nais naming tanggalan ng pangil ang batas na tumatama sa basic rightto freedom of expression ng mga mamamayan,” Casino said at a newsconference.

The bill proposed to repeal the following:

Section 4(c)(4) of Chapter II (Punishable Acts)Libel. The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through acomputer system or any other similar means which may be devised in thefuture.

Section 5 of Chapter IIOther Offenses. The following acts shall also constitute an offense:(a) Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime. – Any personwho willfully abets or aids in the commission of any of the offensesenumerated in this Act shall be held liable.(b) Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime. — Any person whowillfully attempts to commit any of the offenses enumerated in thisAct shall be held liable.

Section 6 of Chapter IIAll crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, asamended, and special laws, if committed by, through and with the useof information and communications technologies shall be covered by therelevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the penalty to beimposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by theRevised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be.

Section 7 of Chapter IILiability under Other Laws.  A prosecution under this Act shall bewithout prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision ofthe Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws.

Chapter IV - Covering Enforcement and Implementation.

source: interaksyon.com