05 AUG 20190 |

Republic of the Philippines 3:Yy ae I]

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES i oe y
Quezon City, Metro Manila

Sixteenth Congress
First Regular Session

HOUSE BILL NO. 2244

Introduced by Representatives
GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO and DIOSDADO MACAPAGAL ARROYO

EXPLANATORY NOTE

Certain provisions of Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012 do not stand well with specific constitutional tenets.
Specifically, Section 4, Article III of the Constitution clearly provides that “No
law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the
press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances.”

Section 4(c)(4) of RA 10175 provides:

SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. — The following
acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable

under this Act:
XXX
(c) Content-related Offenses:
XXX

(4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited
acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed
through a computer system or any other similar
means which may be devised in the future.

No less than the Constitution itself guarantees the freedom of
expression as a fundamental right—a right that gives pride to democratic
nations such as ours. Unless we repeal Section 4(c)(4) of RA 10175, the
constitutionally-protected right to free speech shall remain as nothing but an
illusion.


Section 3(1), Article III of the Constitution likewise guarantees that “The
privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon
lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise,
as prescribed by law.”

Section 12 of RA 10175 offends this constitutional protection, as it
allows law enforcement agents “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” without authority from a court
of law.

While it is understood that seeking a court order might delay law
enforcement agents in their duties, it should not be seen as sufficient reason
to forego a basic constitutional right recognized in all civilized democracies:
the inviolability of a person’s communication and correspondence.

We therefore ask our colleagues to join us in this legislative measure so
that information technology, which RA 10175 seeks to protect, would be a
venue for free speech to flourish.

cron hccarncan ARROYO DIOSDADO MACAPAGAL ARROYO
2n4 District, Pampanga 24 District, Camarines Sur


Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City, Metro Manila

Sixteenth Congress
First Regular Session

HOUSE BILL NO. 2244

Introduced by Representatives
GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO and DIOSDADO MACAPAGAL ARROYO

AN ACT AMENDING THE CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012
BY REPEALING SECTION 4(C)(4) AND AMENDING SECTION 12 THEREOF

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

SECTION 1. Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act No, 10175 is hereby REPEALED.

SEC. 2. Section 12 of Republic Act No. 10175 is hereby AMENDED to read as
follows:

SEC. 12. Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data. — Law enforcement
authorities 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 only under authority of a court warrant.

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.

Any data to be collected or seized or disclosed under this Act 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.

SEC. 3. SEPARABILITY CLAUSE - If any section or provision of this Act is held
unconstitutional or invalid, any other section or provision not affected
thereby shall remain valid and effective.

SEC. 4, REPEALING CLAUSE - All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified
accordingly.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVITY CLAUSE - This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days

following its publication in the Official Gazette or two (2) newspapers of
general circulation.

Approved,