FIFTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) 
Third Regular Session 
) 
SENATE 
S. B. No. 3302 
INTRODUCED BY SENATOR ALAN PETER "COMPANERO" S. CAYETANO 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
The Internet, Smart Phones, Digital media and the Cyberspace are advancements in 
technology that empower people, foster democracy, and encourage checks and 
balance. Legislators should pass laws that further promote the positive use of 
technology and not pass laws that curtail people's freedom of expression and creativity. 
This is elaborated in the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and 
protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression during the seventeenth 
session ofthe Human Rights Council: 
The Internet is one of the most powerful instruments of the 21st 
century for increasing transparency in the conduct of the 
powerful, access to information, and for facilitating active citizen 
participation in building democratic societies. Indeed, the recent 
wave of demonstrations in countries across the Middle East and 
I North African region has shown the key role that the Internet can 
I play in mobilizing the population to call for justice, equality, 
accountability and better respect for human rights. As such, 
facilitating access to the Internet for all indiViduals, with as little 
restriction to online content as possible, should be a priority for 
a II States1 
October 3, 2012 marks the effectivity date of Republic Act No. 10175, otherwise known 
as the "Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012". Unfortunately RA No. 10175 contains 
provisions that contravene the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution. Fifteen cases of 
certiorari praying for the declaration of unconstitutionality of the Cybercrime 
Prevention Act have already been filed in the Supreme Court. 
"Important sections of the same (RA No. 10175) violate the due process clause of our 
constitution, the equal protection of the law clause, the prohibition on illegal seizure, 
and the double jeopardy proscription. Equally more significant is the law's violation of 
the freedom of speech and expression and the right to privacy of communication. The 
law or some part of it should be struck down as void." 2 
1 Frank La Rue. Report of the Special Rapporteur on thE' promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and 
expression, Human RIghts Council Seventeenth session 
http://www2.ohchr,orS/enghsh/bodles/hrcQutlcll/docsj17sessionjA.HRC.17.27 _en.pdf (last accessed: October 9, 2012) 
2 Petition for Certioran entitled "MElENCIO S.5TA.MARIA, SEDFREY M. CANDELARIA, AMPARITA STA. MARIA, RAY PAOLO J. 
SANTIAGO, GILBERTV. SEMBRANO, and RYAN JEREMIAH D. QUAN, (all of the Ateneo Human Rights Center) v. HONORABLE PAQUITO 
OCHOA in his capacity as Executive Secretary, HONORABLE LEILA DE LIMA in her capacIty as Seci etary of Justice, HONORABLE 
MANUEL ROXAS in his capaCity as Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government, The CHIEF of the Philippine 


Section 19 of Republic Act No. 101753 commonly referred to as the "takedown clause/' 
is 
among 
the 
problematic 
provIsions 
that 
should 
be 
struck 
down 
for 
unconstitutionality. Firstly, Section 19 of RA No. 10175 contravenes Section 1, Article III 
of the Constitution on procedural due process as it authorizes the Department of 
Justice (DOJ) to issue an order restricting or blocking computer data access on a mere 
prime facie determination without notice and hearing. 4 In effect, Section 19 makes the 
DOJ a "prosecutor and a judge at the same time."s 
Secondly, Section 19 violates Section 3(1), Article III of the Constitution as it constitutes 
an intrusion in one's right to privacy of communication. 6 The DOl's prima facie 
determination of a violation for the issuance of an order to restrict or block access to 
computer data, will necessarily entail culling though all the data contained in the 
computer file. "In the process, the constitutional right of privacy afcommunication and 
correspond~nce of the victim will be intruded, interfered with, and clearly violated. Other 
files not sUfject of any inquiry will inevitably be scrutinized." 7 
Thirdly, it violates Section 4, Article III ofthe Constitution on freedom of expression as 
"the extraordinary power of the Department of Justice to issue an order to restrict or 
block access to computer data is a form of "prior restraint." First, the power is clearly 
illegal as it is unconstitutional for being violative of the due process clause. Second, the 
"blocking" and the "restricting" immediately snuff even the opportunity to manifest 
expression through the computer and cyberspace. There is total abatement by coercive 
means on the part of the government for one to produce speech by way of messages and 
other forms of communications through the computer. Third, it prevents expression even 
before a court of law decides on any legitimate limitation on the victim's constitutional 
right. ,,8 
The Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of 
opinion and expression stressed in his report that: 
Any restriction to the right to freedom of expression must meet 
the strict criteria under international human rights law. A 
restriction on the right of indiViduals to express themselves 
through the Internet can take various forms, from technical 
measures to prevent access to certain content, such as blocking 
and filtering, to inadequate guarantees of the right to privacy and 
protection of personal data, which inhibit the dissemination of 
opinions and information. The Special Rapporteur is of the view 
that the arbitrary use of criminal law to sanction legitimate 
expression constitutes one of the gravest forms of restriction to 
the right, as it not only creates a "chilling effect", but also leads to 
other human rights violations, such as arbitrary detention and 
torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment 
or punishment. 9 
NatIonal Police, The DIRECTOR of the National Bureau of Investigat!on ( all of the Executive Department of Government)", G.R. no. 
203440, P(lges 5-6. 
3 SEC. 19, Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data. -
When a computer data IS prima faCie found to be in violation of the 
proviSions of this Act, the OOJ shall Issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer data; 
4 Supl'a note 2,Page 20 
sid. Citing Cdjuangco vs. PCGG, G.R. Nos. 92319-20 October 2, 1990, page 20. 
sid" page 22 
'Id. 
i 
sid. page 21 
9 Supra note 1 


Lastly, Sectipn 19 RA No. 10175 violates Section 2, Article III of the Constitution on 
unlawful searches and seizures. Blocking of computer data under Section 19 constitutes 
"seizure". Section 19 of Republic Act No. 10175 provides: 
Section 19.Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data. - When a 
computer data is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of 
this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such 
computer data. 
"Blocking refers to measures taken to prevent certain content from reaching an 
end- user. This includes preventing users from accessing specific websites, Internet 
Protocol (lP) addresses, domain name extensions, the taking down of websites 
from the web server where they are hosted, or using filtering technologies to 
exclude pages containing keywords or other specific content from appearing. lO" 
"Blocking" of computer data is "seizure" within the protective ambit of Article III, 
Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution which provides, 
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, 
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of 
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search 
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be 
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or 
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and 
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things 
to be seized. (underscoring supplied) 
"Seizure of computer data does not require actual taking by, or transfer of ownership or 
possession to, the DO}; nor is it necessary for the "blocking" of such data to be 
permanent. For blocking of computer data to constitute seizure, it is enough that the act 
of blocking results in the interference with a person's possessory interest over such 
computer data. ,,11 
"Clearly, the provision on blocking in Section 19 of Republic Act 10175 constitutes seizure 
that shOUld first comply with the requirement of a judicial warrant upon the finding of a 
probable c.cuse. It should not merely be effected upon prima facie determination by the 
DOJ. ,,12 
I 
I 
"On its very face therefore, the said Section 19 is unconstitutional as it violates the right 
against 
unreasonable 
seizures 
under 
Section 
2 
Article 
3 
of the 
1987 
Constitution. ,,13"Blocking measures constitute an unnecessary or disproportionate 
means to achieve the purported aim, as they are often not sufficiently targeted and 
render a wide range of content inaccessible beyond that which has been deemed 
illegal. 14" 
However, it is necessary to stress that the provIsion provided by sec. 19 serves an 
important role in curbing the effects of other cyber crimes, which endanger the welfare 
of the People. Hence this bill only proposes to amend section 19. The explanation of the 
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion 
10 ld 
11 Supra note 2., page 23 
11 [d. page 24 
13 Id. page 24 
14 Supra note 1 


and expression would also be helpful in explaining the necessity of retaining the 
provision granting a blocking measure: 
32. 
The Special Rapporteur notes that child pornography is 
one clear exception where blocking measures can be justified, 
provided that the national law is sufficiently precise and there 
are effective safeguards against abuse or misuse, including 
oversight and review by an independent and impartial tribunal 
or regulatory body. However, he is also concerned that States 
frequently rely heavily on blocking measures, rather than 
focusing their efforts on prosecuting those responsible for the 
production 
and 
dissemination 
of 
child 
pornography. 
Additionally, as child pornography is often a by-product of 
trafficking and prostitution of children, the Special Rapporteur 
urges States to take holistic measures to combat the root 
problems that give rise to child pornography.1S 
The present bill aims to cure the constitutional infirmity of Section 19, RA No. 10175 by 
deleting the provision of prima facie determination by the DOJ for the issuance of an 
order restricting or blocking access to computer data, and providing instead, for such 
order to be issued on the basis of probable cause as determined by a judge as required 
by law. 
I 
Further, assuming for the sake of argument that the Supreme Court eventually upholds 
the constitutionality of the Cybercrime Prevention Act, the same still does not foster 
creativity, free expression, and empowerment of our people. "The vast potential and 
benefits of the Internet are rooted in its unique characteristics, such as its speed, 
worldwide reach and relative anonymity. At the same time, these distinctive features of 
the Internet that enable individuals to disseminate information in "real time" and to 
mobilize people has also created fear amongst Governments and the powerful.16" 
Suppressing Internet access amounts to suppressing our chances of having a truly free 
and democratic country 
In view of the foregoing, the immediate approval of this bill is earnestly sought. 
15 1d. 
lG 'd. 
R "COMPANERO" S. CAYETANO 


FIFTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 
Third Regular Session 
SENATE 
S. B. No. 3302 
"1 
"".1'[ .. , 
c r'-
, 
j 
; 
:. 
-; 
INTRODUCED BY SENATOR ALAN PETER "COMPANERO" S. CAYETANO 
AN ACT 
AMENDING SECTION 19 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10175, OTHERWISE 
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. Section 19 of Republic Act No. 10175, also known as 
the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 shall be read as: 
Section 19. Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer 
Data. -NO ORDER OF RESTRICTION OR BLOCKING OF 
ACCESS 
TO 
COMPUTER DATA FOR VIOLATION 
OF 
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE ISSUED, EXCEPT 
UPON 
PROBABLE 
CAUSE 
TO 
BE 
DETERMINED 
PERSONALLY BY A JUDGE AS REQUIRED BY LAW. 
SECTION 2. Repealing Clause - All laws, decrees, orders, rules and 
regulations, or parts thereof inconsistent with this act are hereby 
repealed or amended accordingly 
SECTION 3. Effectivity - This act shall take effect fifteen (15)days 
after its publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation. 
Approved,