By Carlo P. Mallo
A unanimous vote has put the implementation of Republic Act 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of the Philippines, temporarily on hold after 14 justices voted in favor of issuing a temporary restraining order.
The issuance of the TRO came while the Department of Justice was in consultation with different sectors amid the growing clamor for the amendment or repeal of the law. Early Tuesday morning, journalists and students in Davao City staged a protest rally at Freedom Park to express their opposition to the controversial law. Simultaneous protests were also staged in Metro Manila, Cebu, and several provinces.
The TRO will be in effect for the next 120 days.
Last week, ordinary Filipino internet users turned their profile photos on popular social networking site Facebook into black as a sign of their protest. Some groups marched on streets while media outlets, radio, television, print, and online joined the chorus of nationwide opposition to the law.
One of the points assailed in the Cybercrime Prevention Law is the provision on libel which seeks to impose a greater penalty than what the Revised Penal Code provides. Other assailed points include the authority of the Department of Justice to monitor, track, and take down websites and internet access without benefit of a court order.
To date, 15 petitions are pending before the SC, all seeking for the issuance of the TRO against the controversial law.
The latest petitioners are the National Press Club (NPC), Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance (PIFA) and Bayan Muna Party-list Rep. Teddy Casino.
In its petition, the PIFA asked the SC to issue a status quo ante order or writ of preliminary injunction against the implementation of R.A. 10175.
The petitioners also asked the SC to study very carefully the junking of the Cybercrime Law and declare it as “unconstitutional” because of the provisions allegedly which are not in accordance with the 1987 Constitution.
They argued the provision of the law on cyber libel is unconstitutional because it allegedly infringes on the right of the people to express their sentiment.
They also said that some provisions of the law are questionable because they are allegedly violative of the freedom of expression, due process, equal protection, right to privacy and correspondence and right to unreasonable searches and seizures.
They further argued that the said provisions are criminalizing libel on the internet, empowering the authorities to collect, examine, confiscate and block computer data, as well as authorizing the DOJ to block access to computer data with prima facie or with blatant violation of the provision of the law.
Malacañang said on Tuesday the Aquino administration respects the issuance by the Supreme Court of a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the implementation of the Cybercrime Act of 2012.
“The administration will always respect the legal processes that are issued by the court,” said Deputy Presidential Spokesperson Abigail Valte in a press briefing on Tuesday.
“I have received initial information that the TRO is directed to some particular provisions (of the law). We’d also like to take a look at that first,” she said.
“A TRO is a provisional remedy. It is not in any way construed as a judgment on the merits,” she added.
On the other hand, the Department of Justice is respecting the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the Supreme Court Tuesday against the implementation of Republic Act No. 10175, otherwise known as the “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.”
In a text message to reporters, DOJ Secretary Leila M. De Lima said they will follow the TRO stopping the Cybercrime Law.
De Lima also said that they will present before the SC the arguments that surfaced during the DOJ-hosted Forum on R.A. 10175 in Malate, Manila Tuesday morning.
Likewise, De Lima said they will continue with their advocacy for a safer cyberspace and the fight against organized crime groups. [With PNA]
