Republic of the Philippines 10 OCT 2012
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES bs Pi
: $91 Ph
Quezon City <

FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
Third Regular Session

6630

HOUSE BILL NO. _

Introduced by AKBAYAN Representative Walden F. Bello

EXPLANATORY NOTE

At no other time in the history of humanity has speech and expression, the
cornerstones of democracy, been truly free as it is today.

With continued technological improvement, today, each and every Filipino
can form an opinion and share it with the broader public in a matter of
seconds. Today, information from across the globe is readily accessible in
real time from the comfort of one’s home. And all this is made possible
through blogs, social networking sites, and other platforms available on the
Internet.

The internet is a model of technological ingenuity that advances the freedom
of speech and expression to its logical extent: the Internet is the freest
platform that is accessible to one and all, regardless of their age, gender,
ethnicity, political or religious affiliations, allowing the free formulation and
expression of any one person’s opinions and identity without interference or
discrimination. The internet is the great equalizer, where any random,
average Filipino is as equally powerful as the politically influential and
wealthy in their capacity to exchange information and participate in debate
and discourse.

This is precisely the value defeated by Republic Act No. 10175 otherwise
known as “AN ACT DEFINING CYBERCRIME, PROVIDING FOR THE
PREVENTION, INVESTIGATION, SUPPRESSION AND THE IMPOSITION OF
PENALTIES THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”, and this is precisely
the same value that Akbayan seeks to protect in amending the law.

In particular, we seek to repeal the provision in RA 10175 that haphazardly
determines CyberLibel and mandates penalties for such that is one degree
higher than provided for in the Revised Penal Code. Invoking libel in
cyberspace is a blatant violation of the freedom of the press as well as the
free speech of private individuals who take to the internet, mandating
penalties for it that are higher than already provided will certainly not


stimulate the State’s concept of “responsible journalism,” but shall instead
expand the chilling effect of criminal liability to stifle the articulation of
divergent ideas. This provision is a blatant violation of the Filipino people’s
right to free speech and expression; it goes against the very core of our
Constitution.

Akbayan also seeks to refine the State’s police powers online. While we
recognize that competing individual freedoms may result into abuses and
injury to persons in the Internet, we do not believe that the State should be
given absolute police powers to collect, seize, disclose or restrict access to
data available on the Internet. To improve the State’s capacity to prevent
abuses online, we believe that any sanctions the State will execute against
any person or entity on the internet must be authorized by a court warrant
that proves the necessity for such act.

Akbayan believes that the State should not fear the freedom that the
Internet provides the Filipino people. Instead of regulating this modern
technology, the State should join hands with each and every Filipino to
promote the internet as a platform for genuine democracy, accessible to one
and all.

It is in this context, and in pursuit of this objective that the following
measure amending RA 10175 is proposed.

WALDEN F. BELLO



Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
‘Third Regular Session

6630

HOUSE BILL NO.

Introduced by AKBAYAN Representative Walden F. Bello

AN ACT
REPEALING SECTIONS 4(c)(4), 5, 6, and 7 AND AMENDING SECTIONS
12 AND 19 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10175 KNOWN AS THE
“CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012”

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in
Congress assembled.

SECTION 1. Repeal of Specific Provisions of RA 10175.- Section 4 (c)
4, Section 5, Section 6, and Section 7 of Chapter II of Republic Act No.
10175, known as the “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012”, are hereby
repealed.

All laws, executive orders, instructions, rules and regulations, or other
issuances contrary to or inconsistent with this provision are likewise
repealed or modified accordingly.

SECTION 2. Amendment of Section 12 of RA 10175- Section 12,
Chapter IV of RA 10175 is hereby amended to read as follows:

“SECTION 12. [Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data.] COLLECTION OF
COMPUTER DATA, TRAFFIC DATA, OR NON-CONTENT DATA BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND OFFICERS— [Law enforcement
authorities, with due cause, shall be authorized to collect or record by
technical or electronic means traffic data in real-time associated with
specified communications transmitted by means of a computer system.

Traffic data refer only to the communication's origin, destination,
route, time, date, size, duration, or type of underlying service, but not
content, nor identities.]

All [other] COMPUTER data, TRAFFIC DATA, OR NON-CONTENT
DATASOUGHT to be collected or seized or disclosedBY ANY LAW


ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OR OFFICER{will|SHALL require a court
warrant.

[Service providers are required to cooperate and assist law
enforcement authorities in the collection or recording of the above-stated
information.]

The court warrant required under this section shall only be issued or
granted upon written application and the examination under oath or
affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce and the
showing: (1) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the
crimes enumerated hereinabove has been committed, or is being committed,
or is about to be committed; (2) that there are reasonable grounds to believe
that evidence that will be obtained is essential to the conviction of any
person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any such crimes;
and (3) that there are no other means readily available for obtaining such
evidence.”

SECTION 3. Amendment of Section 19 of RA 10175 — Section 19,
Chapter IV of RA 10175 is hereby amended to read as follows:

“SECTION 19. Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data. —
When IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE DOJTHERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE
TO FIND THAT [a] computer data is [prima facie found to be] in violation of
the provisions of this Act, the DOJ SHALL FILE THE APPROPRIATE
COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION BEFORE A COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION, AND UPON SUCH FILING, MAY PRAY FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF A COURT [shall issue an] order to restrict or block access to
such computer data.

THE COURT, SHALL GRANT SUCH PRAYER UPON FINDING THAT
THERE IS A PRIMA FACIE BASIS FOR HOLDING THAT THE COMPUTER
DATA IS IN VIOLATION OF THIS ACT.”

SECTION 4. Effectivity.- This Act shall take effect immediately after
its complete publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2)

newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.

Approved,