NO TO RA 10175. Protesters from different youth groups camped out in front of the Supreme Court to inform the public of their opposition to the cybercrime law. Photos by JL T. Javier.
THE SAGA of the cybercrime law is not yet over.
Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 once again came under heavy criticism as youth groups held a series of vigils in protest of the said law in front of the Supreme Court (SC) in Manila.
The first one took place last January 14 on the eve of the oral arguments on the law’s implementation and constitutionality. The groups staged poetry recitations and musical performances, apart from the usual string of fiery speeches.
The second was a concert vigil held last February 5.
The issue went off the radar for months until the said oral arguments commenced. However, the controversial law remains unsettled, as the SC extended the temporary restraining order (TRO) hours before the said concert vigil.
According to the SC Public Information Office, the said extension is effective “until further notice.” The SC issued the 120-day TRO last October 9, 2012.
Violation of individual rights
The College Editors Guild of the Philippines (CEGP), Kabataan Party-list, the National Union of Students of the Philippines, and various student publications and councils participated in the said protest actions.
Protesters openly disapproved of the cybercrime law. However, they also acknowledged that more people must come to realize how the law is said to violate individual rights.
Vanessa Bolibol, third nominee of Kabataan Party-list, said, “Binabanggit sa amin na handang-handa na ang aming legal team na ibasura ang cybercrime law. Pero kailangan pa rin natin talaga ng lakas ng mamamayan upang iparamdam sa Supreme Court na ayaw natin ito. (Our legal team has expressed that they are ready to argue against the cybercrime law. But we still need the force of the people to make the Supreme Court feel that the people do not approve of this).”
Bolibol added, “Ang cybercrime law ay pagsupil sa karapatan ng mga estudyante, mga kabataan at mga mamamayan, ng kalayaan nating mamahayag, online and offline. (The cybercrime law is a violation of the rights of students, youth and ordinary citizens. It is an attack on the free press, online and offline.)”
The Catalyst Associate Editor Aprille Atadero concurred with Bolibol. “Bilang mamamahayag pang-campus, sinusuportahan natin ang laban sa cybercrime prevention law na hadlang sa malayang pamamahayag. Marami nang petisyon na naihain, at kung tayo ay magkakaisa, magtatagumpay tayo at mababasura ang cybercrime law. (As campus journalists, we support the fight against the cybercrime law, which is an attack on free speech. There have been many petitions, but if we all unite, we will succeed and this law will be junked.)”
The Catalyst is the official student publication of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines – Main.
“Junk the Cybercrime Law”
CEGP National President Gidget Estella stressed that the cybercrime law can easily be faulted for its supposedly redundant functions.
Asked whether she wanted the law amended or fully scrapped, Estella said, “Ang sabi ng government at ng pro-cybercrime law people, na bakit daw tayo nag-fofocus sa online libel at sa takedown clause, samanatalang may maayos siyang provisions tulad ng anti-child porn et cetera. Ang sa atin lang, redundant na siya kasi mayroon nang batas na governing these issues. (The government and cybercrime law advocates attack us for focusing on the online libel or the [website] takedown clauses, when there are good provisions, like anti-child pornography. For us, these are redundant, given that there are already existing laws on these issues.)”
Estella also mentioned that the law contains obscure provisions, citing Section 12 as an example. “Kailangan lang daw ng PNP ay ‘due cause’ para i-monitor ang Internet activties ng isang individual. ‘Due cause’ ay hindi kailanman nai-define sa Philippine Constitution. (All that the PNP needs to monitor someone’s Internet activity is ‘due cause,’ which has never been defined in the Philippine Constitution.)”
CEGP National Research and Publication Director Jonathan Caina agreed. “Hindi na lang tayo basta nananawagan, kung hindi i-junk na ‘yung buong batas. (We’re not just calling for this law to be amended. We’re calling for it to be junked.)”
Tool for propaganda
Caina outlined the reasons for CEGP’s vehement opposition of the law. First, he noted that its libel component contradicts freedom of speech. Second, he shared that the provision on real time data gathering infringes on the right to privacy of netizens. Finally, he questioned the vague abetting provisions where merely liking a critical post or status can reportedly get one jailed.
For Estella, the supposed flaws of the law aren’t mere oversights. “‘Yung government kinikilala na ‘yung potential ng Internet bilang tool for genuine change and avenue for progressive propaganda,” she said.
With this, Estella added that the government’s noticeable support for the cybercrime law’s implementation is therefore “malicious in intent.”
Recognizing the present situation
Internet freedom is a predictably sensitive issue for youth groups. The 2011 Nielsen report indicated the Internet’s penetration rate of over 65% for the 15 to 19 age bracket and 48% for the 20 to 29 bracket. Internet use is also said to have crossed class boundaries, with 74% of young users primarily accessing the Internet through Internet cafes.
For the groups protesting the law, action is more important than ever. “Actually, ang desisyon ng Supreme Court ay walang timeframe. Pag-lift ng TRO, pwedeng dinidinig pa rin ang kaso, pwedeng marami nang nakulong, wala pa ring desisyon. Tuloy-tuloy pa rin ang protesta ng kabataan at iba’t ibang organisasyon. (The Supreme Court decision has no definite timeframe. The arguments might not be over when the TRO is lifted. Hundreds could have already been jailed by that time. However, the youth’s protests will continue.),” said Caina.
Caina insisted that this legal battle needs a stronger campaign that would oppose the cybercrime law. “Sa panahon ngayon, ‘di na sapat ang isang legal battle tungkol sa isang issue. Kailangan, meron ding extralegal na kampanya na ginagawa ang masa para i-push ang goberyno na kumiling sa sambayananan. (In our context, legal battles aren’t enough. There should be extralegal campaigns to make the government side with the people.)”
The GUIDON is a founding member of the CEGP. In its editorial entitled “Free the Internet” released online last October 2012, The GUIDON expressed its opposition to the cybercrime law.
