NBI asked to probe teen’s sex video case

The quest for justice of a 17- year- old girl who filed the first complaint under Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act will not be hampered by the restraining order issued by the Supreme Court (SC) on the controversial law.

The probe Ð seen as a test case for the anti-cybercrime law Ð will continue despite the 120-day temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the SC on the Department of Justice (DOJ) on the implementation of RA 10175, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima said yesterday.

De Lima has tapped the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to look into the complaint of the girl.

The victim filed the complaint on the day RA 10175 took effect last Oct. 3. She sent the complaint through an e-mail to De Lima, urging the government to take down a video circulating on the Internet for two years now showing her having sex

with a guy she used to date.

While they are barred from implementing RA 10175, De Lima said the NBI may still request the websites involved to remove the sex video and run after those who uploaded it under another applicable law.

“The NBI may act on this case perhaps under anti-photo and video voyeurism act or RA 9995. The victim is a minor, so can you imagine the anguish, anxiety and humiliation she went through because of that? We need to preserve human dignity,” De Lima said.

RA 9995 imposes a penalty of three to seven years of imprisonment and fine of P100,000 to P500,000 on those who will be found guilty of voyeurism.

De Lima said the DOJ and NBI could not enforce RA 10175 on this case for the meantime because of the 120-day TRO issued by the high court last Tuesday.

De Lima abided by the TRO and suspended the crafting of the new law’s implementing rules and regulations (IRR) as well as the initial operations of the DOJ’s new cybercrime office headed by Assistant Secretary Geronimo Sy.

De Lima, however, said they would continue their mass information campaign to raise public awareness on the new law and continue to address concerns.

“Normally TRO would encompass the implementation of the entire law. The IRR is put on hold but the advocacy is not covered so it will proceed. We will still undertake awareness raising campaign to educate the people on the salient features of the law and to explain to them that there is nothing to worry in the implementation of the law,” she said.

De Lima also clarified the DOJ would continue to accept complaints falling under the anti-cybercrime law but only for evaluation purposes in the meantime.

“If the complainant insists that we act, we will ask them to excuse us and explain to them that the cybercrime law is not in effect. But we will evaluate the complaints and see if other laws may be applied,” she said.

De Lima said they would start preparing their answer to the consolidated petitions against RA 10175.

The SC had ordered the respondents, including De Lima and other government agencies, to answer the petitions within 10 days from receipt of notice.

The high court, in a unanimous vote of 14 justices during their full-court session the other day, issued the TRO stopping the implementation of RA 10175 and set oral argument on the

case on Jan. 15 next year.

‘Crowdsourcing’

The TRO did not declare, however, if the questioned provisions of RA 10175 are unconstitutional.

The court has to decide this within 120 days of the TRO after weighing the arguments of both sides.

RA 10175 aims to combat Internet crimes such as hacking, identity theft, spamming, cybersex and online child pornography.

Journalists and rights groups oppose the law because it also makes online libel a crime, with double the normal penalty, and because it blocks access to websites deemed to violate the law.

They fear such provisions will be used by politicians to silence critics, and say the law also violates freedom of expression and due process.

Most of the furor came from the online community, particularly bloggers and users of popular social networking sites Facebook and Twitter, who felt the questionable provisions of the law were inserted without any consultation with the public.

The TRO was issued just as several lawmakers who had signed the law already took initiatives to amend its questioned provisions.

–