Showing posts with label Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Palace: Time-bound TRO on cybercrime law a 'signal'
MANILA, Philippines - Lawmakers should use the 120-day temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the Supreme Court to amend the contentious provisions in the Anti-Cybercrime Law, Malacañang said.
In a press conference, Presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda said that the halt order, which has a shelf life of 120 days, is already a “signal” from the SC that it sees flaws in the law.
"That 120 days perhaps is a signal by the Supreme Court to Congress it may want to amend the law because this is the first time or a very rare time when [it] issued a TRO [with a shelf life]. Again, perhaps this is a signal to the legislature if you would like to finalize whatever amendments you wish to do," he said.
Lacierda said the 120 days should be used by the lawmakers to finalize what they have voiced out only after the law was implemented.
The controversial law went into effect on October 3, only to be halted by the SC for 120 days ending on February 6, 2013.
Some lawmakers, including senators, only saw the need for amendments after they passed the law. Netizens have lashed at the libel provision as well as the additional powers given to the Department of Justice.
Lacierda said the halt order is just a “temporary setback” in the fight against cyber crimes.
"Obviously, we are stymied in the sense that we cannot use this law to file cases against those criminals," he said.
source: abs-cbnnews.com
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
SC issues 120-day TRO vs cybercrime law
MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously issued a 120-day temporary restraining order (TRO) on the entire Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 or Republic Act 10175.
The halt order is effective immediately. Based on a formula, the 120 days may end February 6, 2013.
The SC Public Information Office confirmed the news around 5:20 p.m. today.
In an order dated Oct. 9, 2012, the high court will deliberate on the issues via oral arguments on January 15, 2013.
Consolidating all 15 petitions that questioned the law, the high court also ordered the respondents, led by government offices and their chiefs, to file a comment within ten days upon receipt of the notice. The government offices are represented by the Office of the Solicitor General.
This is one of the rare occasions that SC issued a halt order with a shelf life. Usually, TRO issuances are effective until a final decision.
The TRO stopped law enforcement agencies such as the Department of Justice, the National Bureau of Investigation and even the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) from implementing the entire law, not just the controversial provisions, such as the libel clause.
Meantime, Malacañang said it respects the reported issuance of a TRO by the Supreme Court on the anti-cybercrime law, adding that it would like to see a copy of the TRO to see which provisions are covered by the restraining order.
“The administration will always respect the legal processes that are issued by the court. We would like to take a look at the specifics of the TRO,” deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said.
TRO hailed
Several lawmakers and various groups hailed the SC's issuance of a TRO.
In a statement, Sen. Teofisto “TG” Guingona said the 120-day TRO is “the first victory of the people and of freedom of expression.”
“For a court to issue a TRO unanimously is a strong message of its belief that the dangers and fears of the people are real and must be addressed. With this TRO, the tyrannical powers granted by the law are effectively clipped,” said Guingona, the only senator who voted against the controversial law.
House Deputy Speaker and Quezon City 4th District Rep. Erin Tañada, and Sen. Pia Cayetano, who were among those who have filed petitions questioning several provisions of the law, also welcomed the SC’s issuance of a TRO.
Tañada said the TRO gives justices more time to carefully review the Cybercrime Law, particularly the issues pertaining to cyber libel.
Cayetano said the SC order “opens a window of opportunity for Congress to revisit the law and work for the amendment and/or repeal of its questionable provisions.”
'A big win'
The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), the Center for International Law (Centerlaw) and the Human Rights Watch also welcomed the SC TRO.
NUJP Secretary-General Rowena Paraan said the stay order was “the very least that the High Court can do confronted with a blatantly unconstitutional and repressive law.”
“We congratulate the members of media, bloggers, netizens, human rights groups, people's organizations, progressive legislators and the many others who have defiantly stood up, spoke and fought against this latest assault on our hard-won freedoms,” she added.
Human rights lawyer Harry Roque of Centerlaw said the TRO was a “big win” for the people.
“The TRO reaffirmed the view submitted by the petitioners that the law is unconstitutional for being violative of the rights to freedom of expression, and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution,” he said.
Human Rights Watch Asia Director Brad Adams also commended the SC for issuing the TRO, but said “the court should now go further by striking down this seriously flawed law.”
Adams said, “Congress, if it still wants to have a law governing online activity, should ensure that such a law will not infringe on civil liberties, human rights, the Constitution and the Philippines's obligations under international law. All provisions in Philippine law that allow for imprisonment for peaceful expression should be repealed.”
‘Battle is not yet over’
“The battle to defend our basic rights is far from over. The 120-day TRO gives a brief respite but the protests must continue,” NUJP said.
The group called on the SC to declare the law null and unconstitutional in its final decision, and the legislators to decriminalize libel.
The NUJP, Guingona and Roque also reminded the public to remain vigilant.
Guingona said, “Now, we must escalate our vigilance, keep the fire burning, and continue the fight for our fundamental rights. The fight of the people, on the streets and online, must continue.”
Roque likewise said, “We ask the citizenry to remain vigilant as the challenge today is to make the TRO permanent by convincing the Court to declare the Cybercrime law unconstitutional. We hope the DOJ and the authors of the law will take heed and forthwith repeal the law even before the Court issues a final verdict on the merits.”
Cayetano also urged the public, most especially netizens and bloggers, to monitor and participate in the public hearings. -- with a report from Willard Cheng, ABS-CBN News
source: abs-cbnnews.com
The halt order is effective immediately. Based on a formula, the 120 days may end February 6, 2013.
The SC Public Information Office confirmed the news around 5:20 p.m. today.
In an order dated Oct. 9, 2012, the high court will deliberate on the issues via oral arguments on January 15, 2013.
Consolidating all 15 petitions that questioned the law, the high court also ordered the respondents, led by government offices and their chiefs, to file a comment within ten days upon receipt of the notice. The government offices are represented by the Office of the Solicitor General.
This is one of the rare occasions that SC issued a halt order with a shelf life. Usually, TRO issuances are effective until a final decision.
The TRO stopped law enforcement agencies such as the Department of Justice, the National Bureau of Investigation and even the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) from implementing the entire law, not just the controversial provisions, such as the libel clause.
Meantime, Malacañang said it respects the reported issuance of a TRO by the Supreme Court on the anti-cybercrime law, adding that it would like to see a copy of the TRO to see which provisions are covered by the restraining order.
“The administration will always respect the legal processes that are issued by the court. We would like to take a look at the specifics of the TRO,” deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said.
TRO hailed
Several lawmakers and various groups hailed the SC's issuance of a TRO.
In a statement, Sen. Teofisto “TG” Guingona said the 120-day TRO is “the first victory of the people and of freedom of expression.”
“For a court to issue a TRO unanimously is a strong message of its belief that the dangers and fears of the people are real and must be addressed. With this TRO, the tyrannical powers granted by the law are effectively clipped,” said Guingona, the only senator who voted against the controversial law.
House Deputy Speaker and Quezon City 4th District Rep. Erin Tañada, and Sen. Pia Cayetano, who were among those who have filed petitions questioning several provisions of the law, also welcomed the SC’s issuance of a TRO.
Tañada said the TRO gives justices more time to carefully review the Cybercrime Law, particularly the issues pertaining to cyber libel.
Cayetano said the SC order “opens a window of opportunity for Congress to revisit the law and work for the amendment and/or repeal of its questionable provisions.”
'A big win'
The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), the Center for International Law (Centerlaw) and the Human Rights Watch also welcomed the SC TRO.
NUJP Secretary-General Rowena Paraan said the stay order was “the very least that the High Court can do confronted with a blatantly unconstitutional and repressive law.”
“We congratulate the members of media, bloggers, netizens, human rights groups, people's organizations, progressive legislators and the many others who have defiantly stood up, spoke and fought against this latest assault on our hard-won freedoms,” she added.
Human rights lawyer Harry Roque of Centerlaw said the TRO was a “big win” for the people.
“The TRO reaffirmed the view submitted by the petitioners that the law is unconstitutional for being violative of the rights to freedom of expression, and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution,” he said.
Human Rights Watch Asia Director Brad Adams also commended the SC for issuing the TRO, but said “the court should now go further by striking down this seriously flawed law.”
Adams said, “Congress, if it still wants to have a law governing online activity, should ensure that such a law will not infringe on civil liberties, human rights, the Constitution and the Philippines's obligations under international law. All provisions in Philippine law that allow for imprisonment for peaceful expression should be repealed.”
‘Battle is not yet over’
“The battle to defend our basic rights is far from over. The 120-day TRO gives a brief respite but the protests must continue,” NUJP said.
The group called on the SC to declare the law null and unconstitutional in its final decision, and the legislators to decriminalize libel.
The NUJP, Guingona and Roque also reminded the public to remain vigilant.
Guingona said, “Now, we must escalate our vigilance, keep the fire burning, and continue the fight for our fundamental rights. The fight of the people, on the streets and online, must continue.”
Roque likewise said, “We ask the citizenry to remain vigilant as the challenge today is to make the TRO permanent by convincing the Court to declare the Cybercrime law unconstitutional. We hope the DOJ and the authors of the law will take heed and forthwith repeal the law even before the Court issues a final verdict on the merits.”
Cayetano also urged the public, most especially netizens and bloggers, to monitor and participate in the public hearings. -- with a report from Willard Cheng, ABS-CBN News
source: abs-cbnnews.com
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Bayan: Cybercrime law dialogue ill-timed, deceiving
MANILA - The Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) accused Malacañang of "drawing attention from the Supreme Court (SC)" and "deceiving the people" with the setting of a multi-sectoral dialogue on Oct. 9 between the DOJ and stakeholders on Republic Act (RA) No. 10175, also known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR).
In a statement issued by its secretary-general, Renato Reyes, Jr., Bayan said the dialogue was ill-timed since it coincided with the high court's regular Tuesday en banc session. Petitions against the controversial law are set to be discussed in next week's session, including petitioners' application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction to restrain government from implementing assailed provisions of the law which petitioners want declared unconstitutional.
"We find it very strange that Malacanang would set a dialogue between the DOJ and critics of the Cybercrime Law on Oct. 9, the same day the SC is expected to decide on the TRO vs. the new law. Wala na bang ibang petsa, DOJ? As petitioners in the case, we're concerned that Malacanang is trying to draw attention away from the SC and lure the critics into accepting the IRR of the new law," Bayan said.
At least 10 separate petitions have been filed with the high court questioning the following provisions:
-- Sec. 4(c)(4), which criminalizes libel on cyberspace;
-- Sec. 5(a), which lists "aiding or abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime" as an additional offense under the law;
-- Sec. 6, which raises by one degree higher the penalties provided for by the Revised Penal Code for all crimes committed through and with the use of information and communications;
-- Sec. 7, which provides that apart from prosecution under the law, any person charged for the alleged offense covered will not be spared from violations of the Revised Penal Code and other special laws;
-- Sec. 12, which authorizes law enforcement authorities to collect or record, by technical or electronic means, traffic data in real-time; -
-- Sec. 14, which authorizes law enforcement authorities, armed with a court warrant, to require "any person or service provider to disclose or submit subscriber's information, traffic data or relevant data in his/its possession or control within 72 hours from receipt of the order in relation to a valid complaint officially docketed and assigned for investigation;"
-- Sec. 15, which authorizes law enforcement authorities to search, seize and examine computer data;
-- Sec. 19, which authorizes the Dept. of Justice (DOJ) to block access to computer data when such data "is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act;"
-- Sec. 20, which states that those who fail to comply with provisions of the law's Chapter IV (Enforcement and Implementation), specifically orders from law enforcement agencies, shall face imprisonment of prision correctional (6 months and 1 day to 6 years) in its maximum period or a fine of P100,000 or both, for each noncompliance;
-- Sec. 24, which creates, beginning effectivity of the law on Oct. 3, an inter-agency body under the Office of the President (OP) to be known as the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC) for "policy coordination" and "formulation and enforcement of the national cybersecurity plan;"
-- Sec. 26(a), which details the powers and functions of the CICC;
-- Sec. 28, which provides for the crafting of the law's Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) by the Dept. of Science and Technology (DOST), DOJ, and the Dept. of Interior and Local Govt. (DILG); and
-- Sec. 29, pertaining to the separability clause which shields provisions of the law not rendered invalid from any declaration of invalidity by a competent court.
Echoing the words of constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas, Bayan said "[t]he IRR cannot cure the infirmities of the law."
In his recent Philippine Daily Inquirer column, Bernas said, "It will not do to say that whatever shortcomings there are in RA 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act) will be remedied by its IRR (implementing rules and regulations). Rules and regulations cannot cure defects in a law."
Bayan said "any dialogue with the DOJ at this point would be within the framework of the oppressive provisions of the law," adding, "The Palace is trying desperately to deceive the people."
'Forum will clarify provisions being opposed''
During the dialogue/forum on Oct. 9, the DOJ and the Information and Communications Technology Office of the Dept. of Science and Technology (DOST) assured stakeholders that aside from presenting and discussing key provisions of the law, they will also "listen to inputs and insights for the IRR."
Justice Sec. Leila De Lima said the forum is intended "for concerned parties to ask for clarifications and to suggest how the law can be made effective to address the problem of cybercrime."
"There is no doubt that the State needs to protect the internet from unscrupulous individuals and organized crime groups," De Lima said.
Those expected to be present during the forum are the following:
- Internet Society (Philippines Chapter);
- University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law;
- La Salle Institute for Governance;
- Foundation for Media Alternatives;
- Globe Telecommunications;
- Imperium Technologies;
- Philippine Software Industry Association;
- Business Processing Association of the Philippines;
- Philippine Computer Emergency Response Team;
- IdeaCorp Philippines;
- National Security Council;
- National Defense College of the Philippines; and
- Freelance Writers Guild of the Philippines.
Representatives from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), DOJ National Prosecution Service (NPS), Public Attorney's Office (PAO), and Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) will also be present.
Rep. Sigfrido Tinga, chairman of the House Committee on Information and Communications Technology, and ICT Office executive director, Undersecretary Louis Napoleon Casambre, are expected to give brief remarks. A review of the legislative history of the law will be done by Damian Domingo Mapa, former Commissioner of the Commission on Information and Communications Technology (CICT).
The DOJ said only pre-registered participants will be allowed inside the DOJ Multi-purpose Hall, the venue for the event, due to limited space.
A live webcast of the proceedings will be made available on www.doj.gov.ph.
source: abs-cbnnews.com
In a statement issued by its secretary-general, Renato Reyes, Jr., Bayan said the dialogue was ill-timed since it coincided with the high court's regular Tuesday en banc session. Petitions against the controversial law are set to be discussed in next week's session, including petitioners' application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction to restrain government from implementing assailed provisions of the law which petitioners want declared unconstitutional.
"We find it very strange that Malacanang would set a dialogue between the DOJ and critics of the Cybercrime Law on Oct. 9, the same day the SC is expected to decide on the TRO vs. the new law. Wala na bang ibang petsa, DOJ? As petitioners in the case, we're concerned that Malacanang is trying to draw attention away from the SC and lure the critics into accepting the IRR of the new law," Bayan said.
At least 10 separate petitions have been filed with the high court questioning the following provisions:
-- Sec. 4(c)(4), which criminalizes libel on cyberspace;
-- Sec. 5(a), which lists "aiding or abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime" as an additional offense under the law;
-- Sec. 6, which raises by one degree higher the penalties provided for by the Revised Penal Code for all crimes committed through and with the use of information and communications;
-- Sec. 7, which provides that apart from prosecution under the law, any person charged for the alleged offense covered will not be spared from violations of the Revised Penal Code and other special laws;
-- Sec. 12, which authorizes law enforcement authorities to collect or record, by technical or electronic means, traffic data in real-time; -
-- Sec. 14, which authorizes law enforcement authorities, armed with a court warrant, to require "any person or service provider to disclose or submit subscriber's information, traffic data or relevant data in his/its possession or control within 72 hours from receipt of the order in relation to a valid complaint officially docketed and assigned for investigation;"
-- Sec. 15, which authorizes law enforcement authorities to search, seize and examine computer data;
-- Sec. 19, which authorizes the Dept. of Justice (DOJ) to block access to computer data when such data "is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act;"
-- Sec. 20, which states that those who fail to comply with provisions of the law's Chapter IV (Enforcement and Implementation), specifically orders from law enforcement agencies, shall face imprisonment of prision correctional (6 months and 1 day to 6 years) in its maximum period or a fine of P100,000 or both, for each noncompliance;
-- Sec. 24, which creates, beginning effectivity of the law on Oct. 3, an inter-agency body under the Office of the President (OP) to be known as the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC) for "policy coordination" and "formulation and enforcement of the national cybersecurity plan;"
-- Sec. 26(a), which details the powers and functions of the CICC;
-- Sec. 28, which provides for the crafting of the law's Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) by the Dept. of Science and Technology (DOST), DOJ, and the Dept. of Interior and Local Govt. (DILG); and
-- Sec. 29, pertaining to the separability clause which shields provisions of the law not rendered invalid from any declaration of invalidity by a competent court.
Echoing the words of constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas, Bayan said "[t]he IRR cannot cure the infirmities of the law."
In his recent Philippine Daily Inquirer column, Bernas said, "It will not do to say that whatever shortcomings there are in RA 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act) will be remedied by its IRR (implementing rules and regulations). Rules and regulations cannot cure defects in a law."
Bayan said "any dialogue with the DOJ at this point would be within the framework of the oppressive provisions of the law," adding, "The Palace is trying desperately to deceive the people."
'Forum will clarify provisions being opposed''
During the dialogue/forum on Oct. 9, the DOJ and the Information and Communications Technology Office of the Dept. of Science and Technology (DOST) assured stakeholders that aside from presenting and discussing key provisions of the law, they will also "listen to inputs and insights for the IRR."
Justice Sec. Leila De Lima said the forum is intended "for concerned parties to ask for clarifications and to suggest how the law can be made effective to address the problem of cybercrime."
"There is no doubt that the State needs to protect the internet from unscrupulous individuals and organized crime groups," De Lima said.
Those expected to be present during the forum are the following:
- Internet Society (Philippines Chapter);
- University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law;
- La Salle Institute for Governance;
- Foundation for Media Alternatives;
- Globe Telecommunications;
- Imperium Technologies;
- Philippine Software Industry Association;
- Business Processing Association of the Philippines;
- Philippine Computer Emergency Response Team;
- IdeaCorp Philippines;
- National Security Council;
- National Defense College of the Philippines; and
- Freelance Writers Guild of the Philippines.
Representatives from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), DOJ National Prosecution Service (NPS), Public Attorney's Office (PAO), and Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) will also be present.
Rep. Sigfrido Tinga, chairman of the House Committee on Information and Communications Technology, and ICT Office executive director, Undersecretary Louis Napoleon Casambre, are expected to give brief remarks. A review of the legislative history of the law will be done by Damian Domingo Mapa, former Commissioner of the Commission on Information and Communications Technology (CICT).
The DOJ said only pre-registered participants will be allowed inside the DOJ Multi-purpose Hall, the venue for the event, due to limited space.
A live webcast of the proceedings will be made available on www.doj.gov.ph.
source: abs-cbnnews.com
SC gets 11th petition against Cybercrime law
MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court on Friday received its 11th petition against Republic Act (RA) No. 10175, also known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, signed into law by President Aquino last September 12.
In its 61-page petition, the Philippine Bar Association, Inc. questioned Sections 4(c)(4), 5, 6, 7, 12, 19 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act and asked the high court to issue a temporary restraining order and/ or writ of preliminary injunction to restrain government from further implementing the law.
-- Sec. 4(c)(4), which criminalizes libel on cyberspace;
-- Sec. 5 lists "aiding or abetting in the commission of cybercrime" and "attempt in the commission of cybercrime" as additional offenses;
-- Sec. 6, which raises by one degree higher the penalties provided for by the Revised Penal Code for all crimes committed through and with the use of information and communications;
-- Sec. 7, which provides that apart from prosecution under the law, any person charged for the alleged offense covered will not be spared from violations of the Revised Penal Code and other special laws; and
-- Sec. 12, which authorizes law enforcement authorities to collect or record, by technical or electronic means, traffic data in real-time;
-- -- Sec. 19, which authorizes the Dept. of Justice (DOJ) to block access to computer data when such data "is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act."
source: abs-cbnnews.com
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Palace denies President's website was hacked
MANILA, Philippines – A Palace spokesman denied Thursday that President Benigno Aquino III’s official website (www.president.gov.ph) was shut down by hacktivists on Wednesday.
In a statement, Presidential Communications Operations Office Secretary Herminio “Sonny” Coloma said the President’s website was inaccessible for 5 hours in the morning of October 3, Wednesday, due to scheduled systems maintenance.
“During this period, Facebook fans and Twitter followers of the President were duly re-directed and were able to use these social media channels without any interruption,” Coloma said.
He also denied that the website of the Philippine Information Agency (pia.gov.ph) was defaced or hacked since last week
“There was no actual defacement of the PIA website and at no time was there a service disruption. In the morning of 2 October, a hacker apparently got into the personal email account of one of the online editors and inserted a link that appeared in one of the posted stories,” he said.
He said the specific irregularity was addressed immediately. He added the PCOO continues to adopt appropriate security measures to ensure the integrity of government websites.
Various government websites have been under attack after so-called hacktivists protested the passage of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, who was given broad powers under the Anti-Cybercrime Law, gave the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) a standing order to run after groups or persons responsible for the defacing of government websites right smack on the day the controversial law became effective.
"They will trace who the hackers are and apprehend them. For this purpose, they need to coordinate with the intel units of other investigative bodies," she told reporters.
source: abs-cbnnews.com
In a statement, Presidential Communications Operations Office Secretary Herminio “Sonny” Coloma said the President’s website was inaccessible for 5 hours in the morning of October 3, Wednesday, due to scheduled systems maintenance.
“During this period, Facebook fans and Twitter followers of the President were duly re-directed and were able to use these social media channels without any interruption,” Coloma said.
He also denied that the website of the Philippine Information Agency (pia.gov.ph) was defaced or hacked since last week
“There was no actual defacement of the PIA website and at no time was there a service disruption. In the morning of 2 October, a hacker apparently got into the personal email account of one of the online editors and inserted a link that appeared in one of the posted stories,” he said.
He said the specific irregularity was addressed immediately. He added the PCOO continues to adopt appropriate security measures to ensure the integrity of government websites.
Various government websites have been under attack after so-called hacktivists protested the passage of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, who was given broad powers under the Anti-Cybercrime Law, gave the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) a standing order to run after groups or persons responsible for the defacing of government websites right smack on the day the controversial law became effective.
"They will trace who the hackers are and apprehend them. For this purpose, they need to coordinate with the intel units of other investigative bodies," she told reporters.
source: abs-cbnnews.com
Monday, January 30, 2012
Senate approves Cybercrime Prevention Act
MANILA, Philippines -- The Senate on Monday approved on third and final reading the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 which defines the crime and provides for the prevention, investigation, and imposition of penalties related to it.
Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III said the bicameral conference committee hearing is scheduled in the next few weeks.
Thirteen of the 14 lawmakers present during the session voted for the bill and only Sen. Teofisto Guingona III voted against the measure, saying it will violate the freedom of expression enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.
The following constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable under this act:
a. Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of computer data and systems: Illegal access, illegal interception, data interference, and system interference carry a penalty of prision mayor and P200,000 fine; while cyrbersquatting has a fine of P500,000 and prision mayor; and misuse of devices;
b. Computer-related offenses: computer-related forgery and computer-related fraud;
c. Content-related offenses: Cybersex with a P200,000 fine and prision mayor; child pornography penalties enumerated on Anti-Child Pornography Act; unsolicited commercial communications with a fine of P50,000 to P250,000 and arresto mayor; and libel as defined by Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code; and
d. Other offenses: aiding or abetting in the commission of cybercrime with P100,000 to P500,000 fine and attempt in the commission of cybercrime. The law also authorizes law enforcement agencies, with due cause, to collect or record by technical or electronic means traffic data in real-time associated with specified communications by means of a computer system.
“Traffic data refers to the communication’s origin, destination, route, time, date size, duration, or type of underlying service, but not content, nor identities,” the law said.
The law orders law enforcement agencies to obtain the approval of a competent court before the collection, seizure, or disclosure of data through a written request for a warrant under oath or affirmation of the applicant.
On international cooperation, the law provides sharing under “all relevant international instruments on international cooperation in criminal matters, arrangement agreed on ther basis of uniform or reciprocal legislation, and domestic laws, to the widest extent possible for the purposes olf investigation or proceedings concerning criminal offenses related to computer systems and data or for the collection of evidence in electronic form of a criminal offense shall be given full force and effect.”
The law also created the following offices:
1. Office of the Cybercrime within the Department of Justice (DOJ) designated as the central authority in all matters related to international mutual assistance and extradition;
2. National Cyber Security Center (NCSC) within the Department of Science and Technology-Information and Communications Technology Office (DOST-ICTO) designated to formulate and implement a national cybersecurity plan, and extend technical assistance for the suppression of real-time commission of cybercrime offense though a Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT); and
3. National Cybersecurity Coordinating Council (NCCC) under the control and supervision of the Office of the President, to formulate and implement the national cybersecurity plan.
Also under the law, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) is ordered to allot P50 million annually for the implementation of this Act and asked the DOJ in consultation with DOST and Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) to create the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) within 90 days from the effectivity of this Act.
The measure takes effect 15 days after the completion of its publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two newspaper of general circulation.
source: interaksyon.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)