Palace open to changes in anti-cybercrime law
The 120-day temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the Supreme Court (SC) on the implementation of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is an opportunity for Congress to change the law that has drawn much criticism, Malacaang said yesterday.
“I think those 120 days (is an) opportunity for the legislature to discuss and finalize whatever amendments that they have already voiced out in public,” presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda said.
“The Senate has already Ð or some senators have already Ð mentioned that they intend to push for some amendments. Likewise in the House. So this would be perhaps a good time and also an opportunity for the legislature itself to amend the law,” he said.
Lacierda described the 120day period specified in the TRO as a “signal” from the SC for Congress to amend the controversial law.
At the Senate, two lawmakers have already initiated moves to have the law amended.
Senators Alan Cayetano and Loren Legarda filed proposals seeking to repeal some of the controversial provisions of Republic Act 10175.
Cayetano also filed a bill to
decriminalize libel and defamation under the Revised Penal Code.
“There is a need to repeal the criminal defamation laws in the country since the present laws create a chilling effect on the community. We need to balance the need to promote the right of freedom of expression and the government’s duty to hold accountable those who abuse it,” he said.
Cayetano considers the move to amend the anti-cybercrime law as a catalyst for the decriminalization of libel in the country.
He added legislators should pass laws that further promote the positive use of technology, not curtail people’s freedom of expression and creativity.
Legarda cited the need to strike a balance between the government’s role to protect its citizenry and uphold freedom of expression.
“The vulnerability of cyberspace to pollutants such as pornography, cybersex, fraudulent practices and promotion of human trafficking (was) precisely the reason for the passage of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012,” Legarda said.
“However, adopting such policy to prevent pollutants from spoiling the minds of our people must not be done at the expense of our valued right to free speech,” she said.
A ranking official of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), however, said the 120 days under the TRO would give the SC the opportunity to discern the law.
The TRO would “give time for the SC to weigh the pros and cons regarding the law and to calm down emotions and to let us be guided by reasons,” CBCP-Episcopal Commission on Bioethics chairman Bulacan Bishop Jose Oliveros said.
Oliveros though cited the need for the law to regulate the use of cyberspace.
He said several countries have already formulated their own cyber law. But he said the cyber law should ensure that a person’s right of expression must be safeguarded.
“The public should also continue to uphold the truth and the right to privacy of an individual,” Oliveros said.
In the meantime, the petitioners against RA 10175 in the SC issued a statement appealing to Congress to expedite the passage of bills that would repeal several contentious provisions in RA 10175.
They also criticized the Senate’s declaration that amendatory bills on RA 10175 will have to take a backseat.
“Why should we wait for the Supreme Court’s final decision before we act? Legislators committed a mistake in passing RA 10175, and the TRO issued by the Supreme Court is a cue for Congress to amend the law,” Kabataan party-list Rep. Raymond Palatino said.
“Before the high court released the TRO, senators and congressmen alike were very active in calling for amendments and repeals. But why is the Senate now dilly-dallying on amendatory bills? It just goes to show that senators are not really sincere in repealing the law,” said Terry Ridon, Kabataan party-list national president and general counsel.
“The TRO just delays the implementation of the law. The TRO is a cue for the Congress leadership to expedite the processing of repeal bills now filed in both chambers of Congress,” Palatino added.
“The TRO released by the high tribunal is effective for 120 days, enough time for Congress to repeal RA 10175,” he said.
There are other ways
In a press briefing yesterday, Lacierda said he did not dis- cuss the TRO with President Aquino and that the executive department would respect the SC order.
The fact that the SC has issued a TRO showed that the country is operating normally and “that there is no such thing as e-martial law, even prior to the issuance of the TRO,”he said.
“Because this is the first time we have or a very rare time when the Supreme Court has issued a TRO which is definite in date, in scope. So they issued that TRO for 120 days. Normally, when the Supreme Court issues a TRO, it is indefinite. So perhaps this is a signal to the legislature to finalize whatever amendments,” he said.
Other laws, meanwhile, could be used to prosecute Internet-related crimes not covered by the Cybercrime Prevention Act, he said.
“The TRO is for the whole cybercrime law so you cannot cut and paste or decide which provisions of the TRO will apply. It’s a TRO on the entire law itself, so we cannot implement TRO as a law itself. But with respect to cybercrimes, for instance, pornography, maybe the other laws can... I would leave it to the DOJ (Department of Justice) if they can apply other laws in the meantime,” Lacierda said.
“For instance, hacking is a crime punishable under the ECommerce Law. Some laws may be able to address those cybercrimes for now but, as to what extent, we will leave it with the DOJ. But insofar as the controversial provisions are concerned, the TRO has been issued and therefore it will be respected,” he said.
Asked if the TRO was a setback to the government’s fight against Internet-related crimes, Lacierda said there would be effects obviously, but there were different applicable laws.
At this point, Lacierda said the Presidential Legislative Liaison Office (PLLO) would cooperate with Congress to provide inputs on the amendments to the cybercrime law.
“From the very start, even the President had said... the President is open to lower the penalties for cyber libel, isn’t it? So we are open. This is a legislative act and no law is cast in stone so, it’s always subject to amendments,” he said.
Lacierda said Congress could work on the amendments while the case was ongoing in the SC.
“There are two tracks... and both are independent of each other. There’s a case in the Supreme Court which can proceed on its own. The Supreme Court chose not to proceed for 120 days, allow the discussions to happen after the 120 days. The legislature, on the other hand, has the power to make laws and to amend the laws... Perhaps, the legislature can move forward and do the amendments since there have been already some voices that already made known the intentions to amend the cyber crime law. We welcome both tracks,” he said.
Asked if there would be a need to augment the legal team of Malacaang to address cases, Lacierda said they have a good legal team and there was only a difference on emphasis of the various provisions of the contentious law.
“We recognize the importance of addressing those cybercrimes and that’s why that was emphasized,” Lacierda said.
While the government was “stymied” in pursuing cyber criminals, Lacierda said the TRO against the law was only “a temporary setback.”
He said amendments would be done on the law so that “what made it controversial will be cured.”
He said finer crafting of the law could be done.
“But as soon as amendments are done or as soon as the Supreme Court rules in whatever manner, at least we will have a clearer view of how we address cyber crimes,”he said.