FIFTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE ) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) 
Third Regular Session 
) 
SENATE 
S. B. No. 3301 
T' .lel 
INTRODUCED BY SENATOR ALAN PETER "COMPANERO" S. CAYETANO 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
Defenders of Democracy and the right to freedom of expression often quote the 
following: 
"I disapprove of what you say, 
but 1 will defend to the death 
your right to say it." 
-Evelyn Beatrice Hall 
"The Friends of Voltaire" 
We now live in an age where technology has enhanced the freedom of expression and 
speech. It has likewise empowered people and democratized institutions, processes 
and government. 
It is time to defend these gains and work harder to pass legislation that will promote 
rather than stifle freedom of expression, creativity and people empowerment. 
Article 191 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR) 
states that: 
1. 
Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without 
interference. 
2. 
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right 
shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of 
all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the 
form of art, or through any other media of his choice. 
3. 
The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this 
article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore 
be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are 
provided by law and are necessary: 
(a) 
For respect of the rights or reputations of others; 
1 Article 19 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights 


(b) 
For the protection of national security or of public 
order (order public), or of public health or morals. 
Section;2 of Article 2 of the Constitution provides that: 
I 
Section 2, The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national 
policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part 
of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, 
freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations 
International laws ratified by the Philippines form part of the law of the land 
under the doctrine of transformation. As a State Party to the International 
Convention on the Civil and Political Rights, the Philippines has the obligation to 
adhere to the prOVisions set by the convention. 
Article 19 of the ICCPR mandates that the Philippines protect the right to freedom 
of expression. According to the ICCPR, freedom of expression includes freedom 
to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of 
frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any 
other media of his choice. 
Republic Act 10175, otherwise known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 
contradicts the mandates of the ICCPR. According to the petition for certiorari 
filed by Sta. Maria et al. and all of the Ateneo Human Rights Center, "The law 
stifles the freedom of Filipinos to express themselves, in what is by for, the most 
democratic medium ever created by humankind. It will stifle not only speech, but 
thought, altering not only words but action. At every turn and at every moment 
online, Filipinos will have a specter of subsequent punishment hanging over them, 
effectively acting as prior restraint. 2" This is because RA 10175 introduces cyber 
libel and the harsh prOVisions of Sections 4 (c) (4), 5, 6, and 7. 
The Human Rights Committee in its 102nd session further clarified the mandates 
of Article 19. General Comment No. 34 on Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and 
expression paragraph 473 states that: 
47. Defamation laws must be crafted with care to ensure that they comply 
with paragraph 3, and that they do not serve, in practice, to stifle freedom 
of expression. All such laws, in particular penal defamation laws, should 
include such defenses as the defense of truth and they should not be 
r applied with regard to those forms of expression that are not, of their 
nature, subject to verification. At least with regard to comments about 
public figures, consideration should be given to avoiding penalizing or 
otherwise rendering unlawful untrue statements that have been published 
in error but without malice. In any event, a public interest in the subject 
matter of the criticism should be recognized as a defense. Care should be 
taken by States parties to avoid excessively punitive measures and 
'MELENCIO S.STAMARIA, SEDFREY M. CANDELARIA, AMPARITA STA MARIA, RAY PAOLO J SANTIAGO. GILBERT V. 
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 Secretary of Justice, HONORABLE 
MANUEL ROXAS in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government, The CHIEF of the Philippine 
National Police, The DIRECTOR of the National Bureau of Investigation (all of the Executive Departrnent of Government) G.R. 
no. 203440 
3 Paragraph 47 of General Comment 34 on Article 19 of the ICCPR: Freedoms of opinion and expression 


penalties. Where relevant, States parties should place reasonable limits 
on the requirement for a defendant to reimburse the expenses of the 
successful party. States parties should consider the decriminalization 
of defamation and, in any case, the application of the criminal law 
should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and 
imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty. It is impermissible for a 
State party to indict a person for criminal defamation but then not to 
proceed to trial expeditiously - such a practice has a chilling effect that 
may unduly restrict the exercise of freedom of expression of the person 
concerned and others. (ernphasis supplied.) 
The General Comment further highlights that the criminalization of cyber libel is 
contrary to the obligation of the Philippines under the ICCPR. It expressly states 
that imprisonment is not an appropriate measure against defamation. Freedom 
of expression must be upheld. 
"According to the 2011 Southeast Asia Digital Consumer Repart, thirty-three 
percent (33%) of Filipinos have accessed the internet within the twelve-month. 
period, translating to about thirty-one million (31,000,000) users. There are multi-
millions more in other ports of the world, regardless of race, religion, culture and 
background, knowingly or not, who will be affected by Republic Act 10175, 
otherwise known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act. ,,4 
Hence, the bill aims to protect the constitutional rights of the people by repealing 
Sections 4 (c)(4), 5, 6, and 7 of RA 10175. 
, 
Section 4 (c) (4) of RA 10175 provides that: 
Section 4. Cybercrime Offenses. -
The following acts constitute the 
offense of cybercrirne punishable under this Act: 
(4) Libel. -
The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in 
Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, comrnitted 
through a computer system or any other similar means which may 
be devised in the future. 
Section4(c)(4) of Republic Act No. 10175 should be repealed because: 
1. The application of RA 10175 is unconstitutionally overbroad affecting 
"publications" previously made but still present in cyberspace. 
2. It is vague in its application and expansive because it covers past speech 
before the law takes effect. 
3. It potentially infringes on a person's freedom of speech under Section 4 of 
Article III of the 1987 Constitution. It is, in effect, a form of subsequent 
punishment. 
4 Supra note 2. citing http://www.slideshare.net/truongbang!south-east-asia-sea-digital-consumer-report-2011 


'Id, 
Section 5 of RA 10175 provides that: 
Section 5. Other Offenses, -
The following acts shall also constitute an 
offense: 
(a) Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime, - Any person 
who willfully abets or aids in the commission of any of the offenses 
enumerated in this Act shall be held liable, 
(,b) Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime, -
Any person who willfully 
attempts to commit any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be 
~eld liable, 
Section 5 of Republic Act No, 10175 violates Section 1 of Article III of the 1987 
Philippine Constitution for being overbroad, This section when applied to libel 
tends to punish legally protected communications, Furthermore, Section 5 is 
vague for not expressly stating the elements of aiding or abetting the commission 
of a cybercrime, It gives the authority the discretion as to the appreciation of 
what constitutes as aiding or abetting a cybercrime, 
Section 6 of RA 10175 provides that: 
Section 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, 
as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through and with the use 
of information and communications technologies shall be covered by the 
relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed 
shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal 
Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be, 
"Section 6 of Republic Act No, 10175 increases the penalty to one degree provided 
under the Revised Penal Code and other special laws if committed through a 
computer, This is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection of the 
law clause of the 1987 Constitution,"S 
For there to be a valid discrimination, the classification must 
a, Rest on substantial distinctions; 
b, Must be germane to the purpose of the law; 
c, Equally apply to all members of the same class; and 
d, Apply to present and future conditions6 
'The only difference of an offense committed under the Revised Penal Code and 
other special laws and, on the ather hand, under the Cybercrime Prevention Act 
of 20112, is that, in the latter, the crime was cammitted through a computer, This 
distinction is not substantial enough, ,,7 
i 
'Id, ciling People vs, Cayat 68 Phil 12 
71d, 


Section 7 of RA 10175 provides that: 
Section 7, Liability under Other Laws, -
A prosecution under this Act 
shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of 
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws. 
Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10175 violates Section 21, Article 3 of the 
Constitution or the provision against double jeopardy. 
"The test to determine the existence of "same offense" for the purpose of double 
jeopardy has been authoritatively explained by eminent constitutionalist Fr. 
Joaquin Bernas S.l, thus: 
The test now is whether one is identical with the other or whether it is an 
attempt or frustration of the other or whether one offense necessarily 
includes or is necessarily included in the other. What this test shows is that 
identity of offenses does not require one-to-one correspondence between 
the facts and the law involved in the two charges. It is necessary, however, 
that one offense is completely included in the other. Thus, while physical 
injury is not identical with attempted homicide, for purposes of double 
jeopardy, physical injury is "the same" as attempted homicide (which 
alleges inflicted injury) because physical injury is necessarily included in 
such attempted homicide."B 
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. 
In view of the foregoing, in defense of the freedom of expression and opinion of the 
I 
Filipino people, the immediate repeal of Section 4 (c) (4), 5, 6, and 7 of RA 10175 is now 
in order'! 
SENATOR A 
N PETER S. "COMPANERO" CAYETANO 
'Id. citing Joaquin Bernas. The 1987 Philippine Constitution, A comprehensive Reviewer, 2006 Edition Page 186. 


FIFTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) 
Third Regular Session 
) 
SENATE 
3301 
S.B.No. __ 
_ 
INTRODUCED BY SENATOR ALAN PETER "COMPANERO" S. CAYETANO 
AN ACT 
REPEALING SECTIONS 4(c)(4), S, 6, AND 7 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10175, 
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE CYBERCRIME PREVENTIONACT OF 2012 
Be it enacted by the Senate and Hause of Representatives of the 
Philippines in Congress assembled: 
SECTION 1. Repealing Clause - Sections 4 (c) 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Chapter II of 
Republic Act 10175 are hereby repealed. 
All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations, or parts thereof 
inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed or amended accordingly. 
SECTION 2. Effectivity - This act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its 
publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation. 
Approved,