‘Nothing unconstitutional with Cybercrime Prevention Act’—De Lima

Justice Secretary Leila de Lima

MANILA, Philippines—There is nothing unconstitutional about the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, Justice Secretary Leila De Lima said Wednesday.

“I refuse to state at this point that there are unconstitutional provisions. Doon sa pagbasa ko ng batas, wala pa akong makita doon na pwedeng sabihing unconstitutional (From what I’ve read, I saw nothing unconstitutional),” De Lima told reporters Wednesday.

She assued the public that they will thoroughly study the law and take into consideration feedbacks from various agencies in crafting the implementing rules and regulations (IRR).

“We will determine how the IRR can be used in terms of clarifying, harmonizing those objectionable portions,” she said.

“Lilinawin sa IRR yung standards, yung parameters, yung proseso (We will clear it through the IRR all the standards, parameters and processes),” she said.

To date, there are already 8 petitions filed with the Supreme Court questioning several provisions of the law.

Some of these provisions are:

Sec. 4 (a)(3), which includes data interference, defined as “the intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses,” on the list of cybercrime offenses;

Sec. 4(b)(3), which lists computer-related identity theft, defined as the intentional acquisition, use, misuse, transfer, possession, alteration or deletion of identifying information belonging to another,  as one of computer-related offenses;

Sec. 4(c) (4), which criminalizes libel, not only on the internet, but also on “any other similar means which may be devised in the future;”

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 the real-time collection of traffic data;

Sec. 17, which authorizes service providers and law enforcement agencies to “completely destroy the computer data subject of a preservation and examination” order;

Sec. 19, which authorizes the DOJ to block access to computer data when such data “is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act;” and

Sec. 20, which states that those who fail to comply with provisions of 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.

Other Stories:

SC extends indefinitely suspension of cyberlaw

Angara, Sotto welcome indefinite TRO on cyber law

SC expected to rule on TRO vs Cybercrime law

SolGen defends cybercrime law at SC

Recent Stories:

AirAsia net profit falls nearly 40% in 1st quarter _{41 mins elapsed}

Asian expat workers end rare UAE strike—company _{1 hour elapsed}

Ex-Dapitan mayor gets 6-year imprisonment for pocketing intelligence funds _{2 hours elapsed}

Aquino appoints Malolos judge Ringpis-Liban as associate justice of tax court _{2 hours elapsed}

Cayetano ready to accept backing of peers for Senate president _{2 hours elapsed}

Twitter tightens security after high-profile breaches _{2 hours elapsed}

Sex harassment raps readied vs ex-ambassador to Kuwait _{2 hours elapsed}

Rinehart loses $7B but still Australia’s richest _{2 hours elapsed}

Tags: Cybercrime law , Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 , Leila de Lima