A reaction paper Republic Act.

No 10175 or the Cybercrime prevention act of 2012

The passage of the Republic act No. 10175 or the cybercrime prevention act of 2012 just months ago, has caused uproar not only by Filipino netizens or denizens with the proliferation of protests in and out of social networking sites and media, but also caused groups such as Anonymous Philippines to hack and deface government websites one of which is the Central Bank to make known that the threat of infringement of their rights and security in cyberspace will not be tolerated. To them, cyberspace is the last bastion of freedom. It is the place where you express yourself without fear of any repercussions or consequences, to air out your grievances and criticisms against those who are untouchables outside cyberspace. The law made headlines. The perceived threat to their rights freedom of speech primordially, has led the Filipino netizens or denizens to launch campaigns and protests in public to contest the constitutionality of the said law. Peaceful public demonstrations were held in front of the Supreme Court calling on them to protect their rights. Slogans denouncing the passage of the law and the possible abuse and infringements of their fundamental rights flooded cyberspace. From social networking sites such as facebook and twitter to social media spread information and fear to the netizens or denizens. Was the law as flawed as those that passed it? A sweeping wildfire brought politicians to switch sides and expose the error of their ways. But as a general rule, laws are presumed to be valid The law seeks to counter the evils and crimes of cyberspace. Though noble of intentions, the law The particular provisions of the law that sent netizens or denizens worried are Section 4 (c) (4) of the law, libel is defined as:
(4) Libel. The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.

Following it was section 5, 6, and 7 respectively

SEC. 5. Other Offenses. The following acts shall also constitute an offense: (a) Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime. Any person who willfully abets or aids in the commission of any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.

(b) Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime. Any person who willfully attempts to commit any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable. SEC. 6. 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: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be. SEC. 7. Liability under Other Laws. A prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws.

The very premises of their fears are that the said provisions may be used to curtail their rights and might be a tool for vengeance by unscrupulous men. It may very well be exemplified in this scenario: if one is to post or say anything libelous against a particular person on facebook and someone likes and, or shares the post, would it be aiding or abetting to commit a cybercrime making one liable? And that under section 6, the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher, and under section 7, one may still be prosecuted without prejudice for violations of the revised penal code. Another cause for concern is section 12 and 19 that states that:
SEC. 12. Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data. Law enforcement authorities, with due cause, shall be authorized to collect or record by technical or electronic means traffic data in real-time associated with specified communications transmitted by means of a computer system. Traffic data refer only to the communications origin, destination, route, time, date, size, duration, or type of underlying service, but not content, nor identities. All other data to be collected or seized or disclosed will require a court warrant. Service providers are required to cooperate and assist law enforcement authorities in the collection or recording of the above-stated information. SEC. 19. Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data. When a computer data is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer data.

Under these provisions the government may unduly interfere with the privacy of each individual in cyberspace. It does not specify what real-time traffic data will be collected. The power of the DOJ to issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer data for just a prima facie violation may be subject to abuse as they themselves will determine