By Rey E. Requejo
Manila Standard Today
Manila Standard Today
Critics. Detractors of the Cybercrime Prevention Act picket outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday as the high court’s justices heard the oral arguments for and against it. Ey Acasio and Danny Pata
Several senior justices of the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed with the arguments of the lawyers of the petitioners against Republic Act 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act, over the infirmities of some of its provisions.
However, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Associate Justice Marvic Leonen questioned the lawyers over the new law and appeared to be taking the cudgels for the government.
The oral arguments for and against the new law took place even as Senator Edgardo Angara, the law’s principal author and sponsor, expressed confidence the Supreme Court would not strike it down as unconstitutional.
But in the House, Bayan Muna Rep. Teddy Casiño and Gabriela Rep. Luz Ilagan said they were hopeful that the high court would rule favorably on the petitions questioning the law’s constitutionality.
Senior Justices Antonio Carpio, Teresita Leonardo-De Castro and Diosdado Peralta stressed what they considered to be loopholes in the law, particularly the provision on online libel and the imposition of penalties for cybercrimes that are higher than what is provided for similar crimes in the Revised Penal Code.
Carpio cited the lack of clear difference between cybercrimes and their equivalent in the Revised Penal Code.
“There’s nothing in this law that requires a computer to be online before the crime is committed,” Carpio said.
“Everybody now uses a computer to type a news report, so practically all libel crimes now are cybercrimes because nobody uses a typewriter anymore.”
Carpio recalled that the high court “already had several decisions which conflict with Sec. 354 of the Revised Penal Code provision on libel.”
With that premise, the senior magistrate hinted that the online libel provision in Section 4 (c) of R.A. 10175 could be considered unconstitutional.
Carpio was reacting to the assertion of UP law professor Harry Roque Jr. that the online libel provision “should be struck down for overbreadth.”
Peralta stressed that section 7, which allows the prosecution of a cybercrime separately from its counterpart in the Revised Penal Code, was “clearly infirm.”
“There is really something wrong here,” Peralta said in agreeing with Bayan Muna Rep. and lawyer Neri Colminares, who argued that the questioned provision violated the constitutional ban on double jeopardy.
De Castro took issue with Section 19 of the law, which authorizes the Justice Department to block or restrict access to computer data without a court warrant.
“How do we start determining prima facie evidence? Does that mean law enforcement agents can now snoop around?” she asked when she questioned lawyer Rodel Cruz.
De Castro also noted the lack of clear guarantees under Section 12 of R.A. 10175, which allows real-time collection of traffic data, that the right to privacy of citizens will be protected.
“Is there any way for the ordinary citizen to know they’re only collecting traffic data and not content data?” she said.
Petitioner lawyer Jose Jesus Disini Jr. replied: “None. The ability to collect copious amounts of data is unparalleled.”
While most of the justices agreed with the petitioners on many points, a couple of them obviously did not.
Leonen, who was appointed by President Aquino in November last year, established the need to regulate Internet use due to cases of cyber bullying.
“Is it not the right of government to come in and remove the megaphone from individuals who are careless? Is there not a state interest in coming in in order to chill them from destroying others?” he asked as he cited the case of Christopher Lao, the law student who scolded a traffic aide and then received enormous criticisms online.
Sereno said “Regulation of people’s behavior is the intended effect of criminal statutes. The Internet has allowed the citizens to cross the line.”
Sereno admitted she was “most concerned by those who commit suicide after being cyberbullied.”
But the petitioners stood pat on how the provisions of the cybercrime law violated the civic rights to free speech and due process, among others things.
At the end of the four-hour hearing, they asked for an extension to the 120-day temporary restraining order issued by the high court in October last year and that will expire on Feb. 6. Sereno said the high court would take note of their manifestation.
The oral arguments will continue on Feb. 22, with the executive and legislative branches presenting their case through the office of the Solicitor General. With Macon Ramos-Araneta and Maricel V. Cruz
No comments:
Post a Comment