by Jonallier M. Perez
The cyberspace is the fifth common domain; the other four are land, sea, air and the outer space. During the Cold War, when then two superpowers, US and USSR, embarked on an expensive race to the moon and beyond, other global players saw it fit to demand for the crafting of an international treaty that will govern the outer space, now overseen by the United Nations. The primary aim is to preserve and protect the outer space for the common benefit of the humanity. One interesting provision stipulates that no person, entity or state may be issued a title over a piece of the moon.
Cyberspace poses common challenges as the outer space. Both are transnational in character. The difference, however, is that whatever concerns and risks cyberspace presents are largely confined here on Earth. The former is intraterrestial; the latter is extraterrestrial. Since cyberspace does not respect national boundaries, there is a need for uniformity of cybercrime laws, particularly among developed and fast emerging countries with strong ICT infrastructure. Philippines is one of them. The Information Age makes the need for such treaty more urgent. A proposed international cybercrime treaty must establish a global framework to regulate online activities. This framework will enable governments to coordinate, cooperate and provide legal measures. In fact, it could also be part of ongoing development of international law itself.
There is no quarrel about the stringent and repressive provisions of the new law. Even the Justice Secretary recently expressed her discomfort over the new power granted to her department to shut down websites even without prior court order. During deliberations in Congress, she manifested her opposition to that provision. Now that the bill has become a law, it is her duty to implement it. There are far better provisions on the law, however. In fact, the most important is the mandate to formulate a national cybersecurity policy. Few realize that the country is becoming notorious in the world community as a favored shelter of foreign cybercriminals. Lest we forget, the ill-famed “Love” virus was not so proudly made in the Philippines. It was designed by a young computer science student from a diploma mill. At the time when the virus infected millions of computers worldwide, including the ones in the White House, resulting to several millions of dollars lost, people clamored for a reformed ICT education. One was for the inclusion of values education and ethics. So far, none has been made. A national cybersecurity policy that the law requires should provide us the necessary tools to keep pace with the global developments. The prospect for otherwise becomes menacing and scary, since a large bulk of global commerce is conducted online.
Most of the petitions recently filed are asking the high court to declare the new Cybercrime Law as unconstitutional, or at least some provisions thereof. Of course, the law is far from perfect. It actually reveals the great digital divide between the solons legislating technology they hardly understand, including their blemished lawmaking, and those who do not. It is a show between tech savvy and those who are not so. There still remains a sea of difference between a conservative establishment and the digital world.
Whatever remains of the law, in case of partial declaration of unconstitutionality, the implementing rules and regulations should still contain provisions on the designation of special cybercrime trial courts, illegalization of creation, acquisition or storage of computer viruses, stronger anti-hacking and anti-spamming rules, cyberattacks and cyberwarfare, capacity building mechanisms and comprehensive ICT educational review. It is even time to pass the bill creating the Department of Information and Communications Technology. The bill aiming to transform the Commission on ICT into a department is just gathering dust in someone’s table in Congress.
