CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012

Republic Act 10175, which took effect on September 12, 2012, speaks about cybercrime,
its definition, prevention, investigation, suppression, and penalties.

The State recognizes the vital role of information and communications industries such as
content production, telecommunications, broadcasting, electronic commerce, and data
processing, in the nation's overall social and economic development. 1 Because of this, RA 10175
puts into much consideration the need of protecting the integrity of computer, computer and
communications systems, networks and databases, and the confidentiality, integrity, and
availability of information and data stored therein. The misuse, abuse, and illegal access of data
pertained to electronic communications systems are made punishable under this law. The
detection of these punishable acts, investigation and prosecution are herein established for the
better effecting of prevention of such offenses.

Under Section 3 of RA 10175, access refers to the instruction, communication with,

storing data in, retrieving data from, or otherwise making use of any resources of a computer
system or communication network. Computer data, as defined under the same section, is any
representation of facts, information, or concepts in a form suitable for processing in a computer
system including a program suitable to cause a computer system to perform a function and
includes electronic documents and/or electronic data messages whether stored in local computer
systems or online. Cybersecurity, on the other hand, refers to the collection of tools, policies, risk
management approaches, actions, training, best practices, assurance and technologies that can be
used to protect the cyber environment and organization and user’s assets. If one causes the
posting of any computer data on the internet, which may cause discredit and dishonour to
another, the latter, who was able to access that data, could invoke this law through established
cybersecurity in order to defend himself from the damage that was caused upon him.

Section 4 of RA 10175 lays down the punishable acts that constitute the offense of
cybercrime. Paragraph (a) lays down the offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and
availability of computer data and systems, which may either be illegal access, illegal
interception, data interference, system interference, misuse of devices, and cyber-squatting.
Cyber squatting is the acquisition of a domain name over the Internet, in bad faith to profit,
mislead, destroy reputation, and deprive others from registering the same. 2 Paragraph (b) lays
down the computer-related offenses, which are computer-related forgery, computer-related fraud,
and computer-related identity theft. Paragraph (c) lays down the content-related offenses, which
are cybersex, child pornography, unsolicited commercial communications, and libel. Other
offenses under this Act are (1) aiding or abetting in the commission of cybercrime, and (2)
attempt in the commission of cybercrime. A prosecution of cybercrime shall be without prejudice
to any liability of the offender for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code.

The penalties of cybercrime would depend on which punishable act the offender may
have committed. Under Section 8, the penalties imposable would be:

1
Republic Act 10175
2
Ibid.
 Prision mayor or a fine of at least Two hundred thousand pesos up to a
maximum amount commensurate to the damage incurred or both if
Sections 4 (a) and (b) are violated.

Prision mayor or a fine not more than Five hundred thousand pesos or
both if the offender committed “Misuse of Devices” under Section 4 (a)
(5).

Reclusion temporal or a fine of at least Five hundred thousand pesos up to

maximum amount commensurate to the damage incurred or both if acts
under Section 4 (a) are committed against critical infrastructure.

Prision mayor or a fine of at least Two hundred thousand pesos but not
exceeding One million pesos or both if the act committed is “Cybersex”.

Any person found guilty of any punishable acts enumerated in “Child

Pornography” under RA 10175 shall be punished with the penalties
enumerated in RA 9775 or the “Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009”,
provided that they be imposed one degree higher.

Arresto mayor or a fine of at least Fifty thousand pesos but not exceeding
Two hundred fifty thousand pesos or both if any punishable act under
“Unsolicited Commercial Communications” is committed.

Imprisonment of one degree lower than that of the prescribed penalty for the
offense or a fine of at least One hundred thousand pesos but not exceeding
Five hundred thousand pesos or both shall be imposed upon any person
found guilty of committing acts under “Other Offenses”.

The Enforcement and Implementation, which is covered in Chapter IV of RA 10175,

vests law enforcement authority and power to the National Bureau of Investigation and the
Philippine National Police. Officers under the NBI and PNP 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. This shall not refer to the data’s
content, though, but may be procured upon a court warrant. Chapter VII of said Act designates
also to the Department of Justice a creation of an Office of Cybercrime, which shall have
authority in all matters related to international mutual assistance and extradition. A Cybercrime
Investigation and Coordinating Center shall also be created, under the administrative supervision
of the Office of the President, for policy coordination among concerned agencies and for the
formulation and enforcement of the national cybersecurity plan.

The Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction over any violation of the provisions of
RA 10175, including any violation committed by a Filipino national regardless of the place of
commission. Jurisdiction shall lie if any of the elements was committed in the Philippines or
committed with the use of any computer system wholly or partly situated in the country.
 Reaction and Opinion on the Cybercrime Law of the Philippines

Personally, I am always an upholder of our Constitutional right of freedom of expression

and of speech. A world would be senseless if everyone is restrained from expressing true
emotions and feelings that could only be communicated properly with the use of words. Even if
this was not protected under the Constitution, it is ascertained under Divine Law for John 8:32
states, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free". Thus, if one cannot
convey any true statement, which deserves to be out in the open, that man can never truly
experience the feeling of sovereignty, and this is, by fact, a supposed inherent trait in every
individual.

But we all know that we live in a world governed by different laws. In this present era,
right now, conduct is guided and regulated by these laws, which is actually a very big benefit to
all of us. If regulation through statutes never existed, I think a decade would have been known to
be shorter than ten years, a year would have been known to be shorter than twelve months, and a
month would have been known to be shorter than thirty days—all because laws were inexistent
and conduct of persons would have never been divided to good or bad and allowed or
disallowed. Simply put, life would have ended easier and faster if killing is not penalized or if
robbery and theft allowed people to just steal money or food because of hunger. So to the
Government, especially to the law-enacting bodies, I give my warmest gratitude. Things are just
meant to be regulated. As what the good old song says, “Too much of something is bad enough.”
This brings us to question, is the approved law on cybercrime beneficial or is it a hindrance to
the freedom of speech?

The Constitution provides for every person’s fundamental political and civil rights with
the primary purpose of safeguarding the person from violations by the government, as well as by
individuals and group of individuals. But these rights are not absolute. Every person is entitled to
its full enjoyment only if it does not tamper and disrespect these same rights belonging to
another. The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 has been criticized by a lot of people,
especially by journalists and “netizens”, for this confuses the interpretation and application of
Section 4 of the Bill of Rights, which states:

“No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or

of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition
the government for redress of grievances.”

According to some, this law is detrimental to their rights because it becomes a censorship against
free speech, which is a civil right also conceded in the internet world. Kabataan Partylist
Representative Raymond Palatino has also criticized the bill as a threat to Internet freedom.
Palatino said that the clause on online libel is "a step backward in our long-term aim of
decriminalizing libel.” He added that complaints of online libel would distract law enforcers
from stopping the more serious crimes of cyberporn, hacking, and credit card fraud.3

I would always like to respect another person’s opinion regarding matters like this. Each
one of us has his own share of significant experiences in their lives, which led them to that kind
3
Your Say: Online Reactions to the Anti-cybercrime Law. www.gmanetwork.com/news.
of point of view. As for me, growing up in a home under strict parental authority, I still believe
that thinking before speaking is really essential. Binding ourselves to this strict discipline will
not cause us anything anyway. Therefore, the Cybercrime Law here in the Philippines must be
one of the legislative’s acts that we must be thankful for. Defamation, which is still apparent on
the Internet, is a crime against honor. The Revised Penal Code punishes oral and written
defamation because, in accordance with the Constitution, every person has the right to the
enjoyment of a private reputation. This is as much a constitutional right as the possession of life,
liberty or property. It is one of those rights necessary to human society that underlie the whole
scheme of civilization.4 If we cannot respect this right, if we do not put a constraint on our
capacity to speak or write, terrible things may happen. Things that we would surely regret of
later on. Take for instance the Charlie Hebdo shooting in France earlier this year. The issue
therein is not really about talking foul things about certain people, but it sure was an issue of the
freedom of speech. I hold no judgement regarding that incident, but it could be a clear example
of needing to limit certain publications that might push people with different principles in life to
execute acts that are violent and disproportionate to the content regarded as libellous or
dishonouring. That attack was very horrific and the victims did not deserve by the slightest
chance to have suffered and killed that way. But it may also be expected from us to be able to
prevent these things and if unsuccessful, convict those who killed.

Cybercrime, as defined in RA 10175, is definitely included in defamation under the

Revised Penal Code. The Internet is very useful, in fact the most profound discovery in
technology, and if we do not treat it properly, if we continue our acts of posting indecent or
libellous imputations against others, using it as a medium of destruction, the Internet will slowly
die and so will our resources of research, innovation, and communication. If we do not penalize
cybercrime and we leave its retributive quality on the hands of the people, violence and death
would result. If there be no law to be used to defend one’s honor, then the offended would have
to defend himself by all means.

Maybe some people just have to read more about the Act before they misjudge it as a
curtailment to the freedom of expression. It is actually not a curtailment at all. It just seeks to
regulate and revives the virtue of respecting others and their right to a good reputation. In the
Revised Penal Code and in RA 10175, an accused is even accorded his formal rights before an
action can be brought against him. The law is loose in this matter. The freedom or the right is not
lost in one way or another. Even malice can be rebutted if the accused could establish that what
he imputed was true and he wrote it or said it in good motives and for justifiable means.
Additionally, it is too much if we ask that cybercrime must be decriminalized when what it aims
to achieve is the security and protection of every individual engaging in electronic
communications and data.

In Disini v. The Secretary of Justice, the Supreme Court held that the deepest concern of
the movants, that the Internet should be a place where everyone should be free to do and say
whatever he or she wants, is anarchical. Any good thing can be converted to evil use if there are
no laws to prohibit such use5. It was also held therein that online libel is not a new crime. It is
essentially the old crime of libel found in the 1930 Revised Penal Code and transposed to operate
4
Revised Penal code
5
Disini v. The Secretary of Justice. G.R. No. 203335 (Supreme Court 2014).
in the cyberspace. Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code attaches when people doubt that
cybercrime is not one of those being mentioned among the punishable modes. “Or any similar
means” permit online libel to be part of the punishable modes or means. There is no question to
that anymore.

One preacher had said, “If you want to enjoy 'freedom of speech' with no limits, expect
others to exercise 'freedom of action’”. I strongly believe in this statement. Especially when we
talk about the online world, because a lot of people think that the Internet is a safe place when
the truth is, it is not. The Cybercrime Law protects Internet users and non-users, and that is how
the law works from the beginning of time. Therefore, everything must be in limitations. The
rights of the people are not absolute for a reason. And that reason could be the only way to
secure protection from violent exercise of “freedom of action” and attain justice “by all means”.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10175

CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012
 March 30, 2015

Submitted to:
Atty. Villarica

Submitted by:
Clarisse P. Navarro
LLB 1 – EH 401