Groups Urged SC to Overturn Cybercrime Law

Petitioners of the cybercrime law asked the Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday to reconsider its decision upholding the constitutionality of some provisions of the law, including online libel.

The petition was filed by Kabataan party-list Rep. Raymond Palatino, Alliance of Concerned Teachers party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio, Anakbayan Chair Vencer Crisostomo, University of the Philippines-College of Mass Communication Dean Roland Tolentino, and blogger Katrina Stuart Santiago.

Among the petitioners, Kabataan Party-list, in its motion for reconsideration, said Sections 4(c)4, 5, and 6 of the law should have been declared unconstitutional due to “vagueness and overbreadth.”

Unbriddled Discretion

Its 11-page motion for reconsideration said “Because of this vagueness and confusion, this will most definitely give law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out the law’s provisions, become an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle, and produce a chilling effect on legitimate and protected speech.”

It also said “As a result, due to the vagueness and confusion of the statute, the penal statute will intrude upon perfectly legitimate and protected speech.”

Difficult to delineate

The petition said because of the SC ruling, “people will have a difficult if not impossible way to delineate what is considered a crime and what is protected speech.”

Section 4(c)4 of the recent Cyber Crime Law makes libel as defined under Art. 355 of the Revised Penal Code when committed through a computer system or any other similar means a cybercrime.

Section 5 of it declares the aiding or abetting in the commission of Cybercrime and the attempt in its commission as a cybercrime offense and Section 6 imposes a penalty one degree higher for crimes penalized by the Revised Penal Code and special laws, if committed with the use of information and communication technology.

On February 18, the SC ruled in favor of the constitutionality of online libel “with respect to the original author of the post but unconstitutional only where it penalizes those who simply receive the post or react to it.”

Violating Constitutional Right

The petitioners also said that Section 13 of the law on the “preservation of data” and Section 15 on the powers and duties of law enforcement authorities in implementing search and seizure warrant should be declared unconstitutional.

They said it is unconstitutional for violating the “constitutional right to due process relative to the undue deprivation of property” and the “constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures”.

President Benigno Aquino III signed the said law in 2012 to address cybercrimes such as fraud, identity theft, spamming and child pornography.

In October 2012, the high court suspended the law’s implementation after receiving 15 petitions from various groups and individuals questioning the constitutionality of some of the law’s provisions, including the purported threat to freedom of speech, increasing the penalties for libel, and making it easier for authorities to spy on citizens via electronic media.

Source: Gma News Online

Image Credit: www.rappler.com