Republic of the Philippines 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
Quezon City 
NINETEENTH CONGRESS 
First Regular Session 
HOUSE BILL NO. ____ 
Introduced by HON. LUIS RAYMUND “LRAY” F. VILLAFUERTE, JR. 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
The Budapest Convention on Cybercrime (2001) is the first international treaty harmonizing 
national laws to prevent and punish Internet and computer crime. On 15 May 2007, the 
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (COE) invited the Philippines to comply with 
the Convention on Cybercrime during the 1026th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.1 In line 
with the treaty, Republic Act No. 10175, otherwise known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 
2012, was enacted. It pursues a common policy to address cybercrime by adopting 
appropriate legislation and fostering international cooperation. In 2012, the Department of 
Science and Technology (DOST), Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), 
and Department of Justice (DOJ) acceded to the Convention by issuing Certificates of 
Concurrence (COCs), respectively.  
However, the submission of the COCs to the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) was 
postponed because Cybercrime Law challenges the Constitution. In Section 24, Article II of the 
1987 Philippine Constitution, the “State recognizes the vital role of communication and 
information in nation building." Article III further expounds on our rights to due process and 
equal protection of the laws (Section 1), right to be free from unreasonable searches and 
seizures (Section 2), right to privacy of communication and correspondence (Section 3), 
freedom of speech, of expression, and of the press (Section 4), and prohibition against double 
jeopardy (Section 21). Furthermore, the Philippines’ ratification of the International Convention 
on the Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) obligates the nation to adhere to its provisions. Of 
particular note is Article 19 of the ICCPR mandating the country to protect the right to freedom 
of expression.   
Republic Act No. 10175 contradicts these rights and mandates when it introduced cyber libel 
and harsh provisions found in Sections 4 (c) (4), 5,6, and 7. Section 4 (c) (4) provides: “the 
following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime 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, committed through a computer system or any other
similar means which may be devised in the future.”
The proclamation should be repealed because the application is so broad and vague that it is 
unconstitutional. It would affect previously made “publications” that remain in cyberspace. 
Finally, it holds great potential to infringe on a person’s freedom of speech. In effect, 
punishment can be vetted for those who exercise freedom of speech in cyberspace.  
1 2016-2017 Philippine Cybercrime Report. Office of Cybercrime, Department of Justice, retrieved from: 
https://doj.gov.ph//files/OOC/ooc_report_corrected.pdf 
November 10, 2022
2:54 pm
6041


Section 5 provides: “The following acts shall constitute an offense: 
(a) Aiding or Abetting in the Commissions of Cybercrime. – Any person who willfully abets
or aids in the commission of any 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 held liable.”
The overbroad reach of Section 5 violates Section 1 Article III of the Constitution. When 
applied to libel as stipulated in Section 4 (c) (4), the law punishes legally protected 
communications. Furthermore, Section 5 does not explicitly state the elements of aiding or 
abetting a cybercrime. It implicitly gives the ruling body free reign on what constitutes aiding or 
abetting a cybercrime.   
Section 6 provides: “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.”  
Since Section 6 increases the penalty to one degree, it violates a citizen’s right to the equal 
protection of the law as enshrined in the Constitution. The only distinction for the differing 
degree of punishment for the same offense is that the crime would be committed through a 
computer. Such a distinction is not substantial enough to validate a higher degree of 
punishment. 
Section 7 provides: “A prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for 
violation of any provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as amended or special laws.”  
Section 7 violates the constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy, which has long been 
settled.  
Thus, the Cybercrime law, in its current state, is an overreach of the government’s powers as it 
violates the inalienable rights of its citizens and must be amended posthaste. With the 
passage of other bills dealing with cyberspace and technology such as the Data Privacy Act of 
2012, there is a need to harmonize certain provisions to reduce contradictions among other 
laws. 
This re-filed version of the bill intends to safeguard the many inalienable rights enshrined in 
the Constitution and protect the freedom of expression of the Filipino people.  
In view of the foregoing, immediate passage of this bill is earnestly sought. 
LUIS RAYMUND “LRAY” F. VILLAFUERTE, JR. 


Republic of the Philippines 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
Quezon City 
NINETEENTH CONGRESS 
First Regular Session 
HOUSE BILL NO. ____ 
Introduced by HON. LUIS RAYMUND “LRAY” F. VILLAFUERTE, JR. 
AN ACT 
AMENDING 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. Sections 4(c)(4), 6, 7, 12 and 19 of Republic Act No. 10175, otherwise 
known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, are hereby repealed. All laws, 
orders, issuances, circulars, rules and regulations or parts thereof, which are 
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, are hereby repealed or modified 
accordingly. 
SECTION 2. Section 4(c)(1) is likewise hereby repealed; Provided, That the Anti-
Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 or Republic Act No. 9208 shall govern the offense of 
trafficking of persons committed through a computer system. 
SECTION 3. Section 4(a) of the Act is hereby amended to read as follows: 
"SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. - The following acts constitute the offense of 
cybercrime punishable under this Act: 
(a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data
and systems, AS CONSISTENT WITH THE DATA PRIVACY ACT OF 2012
OR REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10173: xxx"
6041


 
SECTION 4. Separability Clause. – Should any provision herein be subsequently 
declared invalid or unconstitutional, the same shall not affect the validity or the legality 
of the other provisions not so declared. 
 
SECTION 5. Repealing Clause. – All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders, 
rules and regulations, other issuances, and parts thereof, which are inconsistent with 
the provisions of this Act, are hereby repealed and modified accordingly. 
 
SECTION 6. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after publication 
in the Official Gazette or in at least (2) newspapers of general circulation. 
 
Approved,