PASCUAL, Joshua Ejeil A.

IA – 2012-30683

Memorandum of Law

TITLE: Legal Remedies available both here and abroad for being “doxed” online, and whether or
not it matters that an anonymous online persona blogged about politics.
REQUESTED BY: Prof. Emerson Bañez
DATE SUBMITTED: December 21, 2017

QUESTION PRESENTED
What are the legal remedies (criminal, civil, and administrative) a person can avail of (both
here and abroad) if she is “doxed” online? Would it matter that her anonymous online persona
blogged about politics?

BRIEF ANSWER
While there are no definite anti-doxing laws in the Philippines, there are offenses similar
to which in nature (i.e. online libel). Should one be doxed online, one may avail of remedies under
the Cybercrime Prevention Act, the Data Privacy Act, and circulars issued the National Privacy
Commission. Abroad, specifically in the United States, one can avail of remedies under the Tort
of International Infliction of Emotional Distress. As to the second question: yes, it would matter.
The State protects the right to speech, and protects the citizens against forms of attacks, including
those committed online. Though she posted anonymously and with the use of an informal medium
such as a blog, in the end, she would have faced harassment and breaches on her privacy.

FACTS
Legally speaking, “doxing” has no definition. The term “doxing” is a form of harassment
that occurs when a person obtains personal information about another and posts such information
online without the other’s permission.1 Doxing is also defined as “the act of publishing someone's
personal information, of which there would be a reasonable expectation of privacy and dubious
value to the conversation, in an environment that implies or encourages intimidation or threat”2.
As to the intent of anyone who commits doxing, they do so with the intent of either harassing the
person or intimidating him/her.3

In today’s highly politically-charged atmosphere, dissenters and supporters alike have

taken to the internet to express their views and arguments. With the accessibility of social
networking sites and other similar platforms, anyone can post their views for everyone to see.
However, these are not the only information that can be found online. Personal information can
also be found online. As such, these are open to be used by those who would have malicious intent
to harm others – most especially for silencing those who are opposed to one’s views.

DISCUSSION
Given the definition – or lack thereof – of doxing in our legal system, there has yet to be a
law that specifically punishes such act. What is punished are the means by which the information
used to dox someone is accessed. Such are punishable under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, the
Data Privacy Act of 2012, and even in the government through the National Privacy Commission
circulars if such an act was done without the person’s permission or that it was illegally accessed
or hacked. Under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, “offences against the confidentiality, integrity,
and availability of a computer data and systems”4, which includes illegal access, is punishable with
imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of at least two hundred thousand pesos (Php 200,000.00).5
The Data Privacy Act applies to all processing of personal information and any person, both natural
and juridical, involved in such processes but certain exceptions are provided.6 Sections 25-32 of
the Act enumerate the penalties for each violation, which are: unauthorized processing of personal
information, accessing information due to negligence, intentional breach, concealment of security

1
19 Victoria McIntyre, “Do(x) You Really Want To Hurt Me?”: Adapting IIED As A Solution To Doxing By Reshaping
Intent, Tul. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 113 (2016)
2
Id.
3
Id.
4
Rep. Act No. 10175 (2012), sec. 4 (a)
5
Supra sec. 8
6
Rep. Act No. 10173 (2012), sec. 4
breaches to sensitive information, malicious disclosure, and unauthorized disclosure.7 It is under
sections 31 and 32 (malicious, and unauthorized disclosure) where the punishment of doxing has
its closest manifestation. Under these two sections, violations are punished when there are the
elements of disclosing information in bad faith, and done without permission or consent8. Violation
of section 31 is imprisonment of one (1) year and six (6) months up to five years (5) and a fine
ranging from five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00) to one million pesos
(Php1,000,000.00), and violation of section 32 is imprisonment as well of one (1) year to three (3)
years and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00) to one million pesos
(Php1,000,000.00) as well.9 More so, in the government field specifically, there are circulars10
released by the National Privacy Commission to safeguard personal data in government agencies.
If found that the breach was under the concerned department’s jurisdiction, those involved and the
department heads concerned will be held administratively liable. Aside from these three laws,
should the person who was doxed online suffer from moral damages, then they may seek a civil
remedy under the Civil Code.11 In sum, a person’s right to information privacy is protected by such
laws in cases when there has either been an illegal access to such information; or when there has
been legal access but no authorization from the person concerned was given to release such
information.

In the United States, there are likewise no laws which specifically punishes doxing.
However, those doxed may seek a remedy under the tort law of Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress or IIED.12 The IIED defines a perpetrator as “[a]n actor who by extreme and outrageous
conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional harm to another is subject to liability
for that emotional harm and, if the emotional harm causes bodily harm, also for the bodily harm”;
hence, the defendant must be shown to have both an extreme and outrageous conduct.13 In the
context of doxing, one who is guilty of such extreme and outrageous conduct will be held liable
for emotional damages.

7
Supra sec. 25-32
8
Supra sec. 31-32
9
Id.
10
NPC Circular No. 01-16
11 Civil Code, art. 21
12
McIntyre, supra note 1 at 126
13
Id.
 With regard to her blogging anonymously about politics, she may herself be held liable for
doxing if she is found to have published such information, and violated the aforementioned laws
given her anonymity and freedom in posting such information about politics and, by logical
extension, politicians.

CONCLUSION
Thus, in the Philippines, should a person be doxed online, there are already laws in place
which will hold perpetrators civilly, criminally, and administratively liable. Abroad, specifically
in the United States, those guilty of doxing may be held liable under the IIED, but this remedy
would still need more concrete legislation in order for it to have better force and effect.

With regard to whether or not an anonymous online persona blogged about politics, it
matters because the blogger would be held liable for doxing under the laws mentioned above if
she is found to be guilty of violating provisions regarding doxing or similar offenses. Her
anonymity and the liberty it brings would be greatly against her favor.
TITLE: Legal Issues surrounding the Initial Coin Offering of a Philippine gaming software
company
DATE SUBMITTED: December 21, 2017

QUESTION PRESENTED
What are the legal issues a Philippine gaming software company should consider in
launching an Initial Coin Offering (ICO) and selling Ethereum-based tokens through their ICO?

BRIEF ANSWER
The legal issues are that before a company launches an ICO, they must first conform to the
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) regulation regarding both the ICO and the Token being sold.
However, there is no current regulation that covers ICOs but BSP does regulate Virtual Currency
(VC). However, the BSP may not distinguish between VC and Tokens; hence tokens may be
regulated in the same way VC is by BSP.

FACTS
To fund the development of its next game, a Philippine gaming software company is
launching an ICO, also known as a “Token Sale”14 or “Token Launch”15. It is the means by which
a gaming company can raise money which, in turn, they will use to develop their game. In their
ICO, they will be selling Ethereum-based tokens that the buyers can later use once the game has
been shipped.

DISCUSSION
The issue is whether or not Tokens may be regulated by BSP because it only regulates
virtual currency or VC and VC exchanges. The answer is yes. Under Circular No. 944 of the BSP
or subsec. 4512N.2, Virtual Currency or VC “refers to any type of digital unit that is used as a
medium of exchange or a form of digitally stored value created by agreement within the

14
Rob Massey, Darshini Dalal & Asha Dakshinamoorthy, Initial Coin Offering: A new paradigm 2 (2017) available at
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ru/Documents/financial-services/us-cons-new-paradigm.pdf
15
Id.
community of VC users…”.16 Given the qualifying word any, “Tokens” may then be construed as
being under the BSP definition of VC. Another issue involves the currency exchange. In subsec.
4512N.1 states that it “shall cover VC exchanges in the Philippines offering services or engaging
in activities that provide facility for the conversion or exchange of fiat currency to VC or vice
versa”.17 Under the BSP guidelines, fiat currency is defined as government-issued money, while
VC exchanges is the conversion or exchange of fiat currency or other value into VC or vice versa.18
Hence, the gaming company then would have to adjust and conform to BSP’ regulation as their
currencies fall under the scope of the BSP and are considered as “similar to remittance and transfer
companies”.19 Before a gaming software company can launch an ICO, they must first acquire a
Certificate of Registration (COR)20 from BSP. Lastly, they must pay registration and annual
service fees, be placed under security mechanisms, provide an internal control mechanism and
provide notification and reporting.21

CONCLUSION
In summary, the gaming software company, in their goal to develop their game, would be
launching an Initial Coin Offering. In such a pursuit, they would meet the following legal issues:
BSP regulation of VC, exchange rate of currencies, registration, and other internal measures.

16 Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Cirular Order. No. 944 2 (2017)

17
Id.
18
Id.
19
Id.
20
Id. at 3
21
Id.