THE SUPREME COURT (SC) yesterday tamed
contentious provisions of the controversial cybercrime law, qualifying
the rules pertaining to online libel and participation in an Internet
crime.
“The Court partially granted the reliefs
sought in the 15 consolidated petitions challenging the
constitutionality of Republic Act (RA) 10175,” SC Spokesperson Theodore
O. Te said in a press briefing.
Mr. Te said the SC struck down three provisions of the Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012, and imposed conditions on the constitutionality
of three other sections.
The provisions that were declared as unconstitutional include:
• Penalizing the posting of unsolicited commercial communications (Sec. 4c4);
• Authorizing the collection or recording of traffic data in real time (Sec. 12); and
• Allowing the Department of Justice (DoJ) to restrict or block access to suspected computer data (Sec. 19).
The high court upheld the constitutionality of the law’s online libel
provisions penalizing the original author of an Internet post, but
struck down as unconstitutional a portion which punishes “those who
simply receive the post or react to it.”
A section punishing the act of aiding and abetting cybercrimes was
sustained as constitutional with respect to: illegal access; illegal
interception; data interference; system interference; misuse of devices;
cybersquatting; computer-related fraud; identify theft; and cybersex.
However, the high court ruled as unconstitutional the aiding and
abetting in offenses punished by child pornography, “unsolicited
commercial communications,” and online libel.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Section 7, which authorizes the prosecution of
an offender in both the cybercrime law and the Revised Penal Code, was
struck down with respect to online libel, and child pornography.
The SC rejected the said provision for violating the right against
double jeopardy, which protects an accused of being charged with the
same offense twice.
A total of 15 petitions have been filed since September 2012 questioning
at least 19 provisions of the cybercrime law. Petitioners include
journalists, lawyers, activist groups, Internet advocates and lawmakers.
Other provisions that were questioned include a rule imposing a higher
degree of penalties for cybercrime, which would be punished by a notch
higher than those in the Revised Penal Code.
Petitioners also questioned the power of law enforcement authorities to
preserve data, and to order the disclosure of traffic data upon securing
a search warrant.
The implementation of the law has been shelved since Oct. 9, 2012,
following a 120-day restraining order, which the high court made
indefinite on Feb. 5, 2013.
Stakeholders had mixed reactions with the Supreme Court ruling.
In a statement, the DoJ welcomed the high court’s decision, saying it
was necessary to balance the power of the state and the rights of
citizens.
“A clear legal framework is necessary to protect citizens and balance
state duties. We will continue to recommend best practices to improve
the law,” the statement quoted Justice Secretary Leila M. de Lima as
saying.
DoJ’s cybercrime head, Assistant Secretary Geronimo L. Sy, said: “The
hard work begins. We were ready to engage stakeholders to issue the
implementing rules and regulations (IRR) as required by law and the
procedures that will aid law enforcers to investigate core cybercrime
cases.”
Petitioner Party-list Rep. Neri J. Colmenares (Bayan Muna) said they are
disappointed with the Supreme Court’s ruling. “You are no longer
allowed to tweet or post your anger or disgust with government. This is
the meaning of the SC ruling, but we will file for a motion for
reconsideration,” he said.
“The government should not be the prosecutor of stained reputations,” Mr. Colmenares said, branding it a “draconian law.”
“No one should go to prison just for expressing oneself, specially on
the Internet, where people express their frustration with government,”
he added.
RA 10175 was enacted on Sept. 12, 2012 by President Benigno S. C. Aquino
III, but opponents quickly said the law gave the government wide powers
to curb Internet freedom due to the provisions that impose heavy prison
terms for online libel.
The original law also gave the state power to shut down Web sites and
monitor online activities, in a country where major protests have been
organized through Facebook and Twitter.
Party-list Rep. Terry L. Ridon (Kabataan) vowed to challenge the law.
While the high court entertains appeals, it rarely reverses decisions.
“The fight against e-Martial Law is far from over. We call on everyone
to up the ante and once again show our collective dissent against this
repressive law,” Mr. Ridon said. -- with AFP
source: Businessworld
No comments:
Post a Comment