TRO Cyber crime

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/october2012/203299.pdf
http://www.cmfr-phil.org/2014/02/18/supreme-court-declares-key-cyber-crime-lawprovisions-except-libel-unconstitutional/
https://lalaordenes.wordpress.com/tag/republic-act-no-10175/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/109455216/Temporary-Restraining-Order-against-TheCybercrime-Prevention-Act-of-2012

PHIL Star TRO Lifted

(UPDATE) SC declares law on online

libel constitutional
(philstar.com) | Updated February 18, 2014 - 7:00pm
15

151 googleplus1

MANILA, Philippines (Xinhua) - The Supreme Court (SC) today declared constitutional several provisions in
Republic Act 10175 or Cybercrime Law including the one that penalizes online libel.
Supreme Court spokesman Theodore Te told reporters in a press briefing that the online libel provision in the
Cybercrime Law is constitutional with respect to the original author of the post.
The High Court, however, did not allow penalties for those who simply receive the post or react to it.
The SC also declared constitutional a provision on aiding or abetting in the commission of cybercrime such as
illegal access, computer-related fraud, computer-related identity theft, and cybersex
The High Court, however, declared unconstitutional the power of the Department of Justice to take down
computer data.
Other provisions that were ordered scrapped by the SC for being unconstitutional are those that pertain to
penalties for posting of unsolicited commercial communications and that which authorizes the collection or
recording of traffic data in real-time.

Headlines ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

Te said petitioners are allowed to file a motion for reconsideration before the SC.
With the ruling, Te said the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the SC against the implementation of
Cybercrime Law is automatically lifted.

The SC extended indefinitely the TRO on the implementation of the Cybercrime Law before the 120-day TRO
lapsed on Feb. 6 last year.

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2014/02/18/1291891/update-sc-declares-lawonline-libel-constitutional

Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012

Congress of the Philippines

An Act Defining Cybercrime, Prevention, Investigation, Suppression

and the Imposition of Penalties Therefor and for Other Purposes

Citation

Republic Act No. 10175

Territorial extent

Philippines

Enacted by

House of Representatives of the

Philippines

Date enacted

June 4, 2012

Enacted by

Senate of the Philippines

Date enacted

June 5, 2012

Date signed

September 12, 2012

Signed by

Benigno Aquino III

Date commenced

October 3, 2012[note 1]

Legislative history

Bill introduced in the House An Act Defining Cybercrime,

of Representatives of the

Providing for the Prevention,

Philippines

Suppression and Imposition of

Penalties Therefor and for Other
Purposes

Bill citation

House Bill 5808[note 2]

Bill published on

February 9, 2012

Introduced by

Susan Yap (Tarlac)

First reading

February 13, 2012

Second reading

May 9, 2012

Third reading

May 21, 2012

Conference committee bill

June 4, 2012

passed

Committee report

Joint Explanation of the Conference

Committee on the Disagreeing

Provisions of Senate Bill No. 2796 and
House Bill No. 5808

Bill introduced in the Senate An Act Defining Cybercrime,

of the Philippines

Providing for Prevention, Investigation

and Imposition of Penalties Therefor
and for Other Purposes

Bill citation

Senate Bill 2796

Bill published on

May 3, 2011

Introduced by

Edgardo Angara

First reading

May 3, 2011

Second reading

January 24, 2012

Third reading

January 30, 2012

Conference committee bill

June 5, 2012

passed

Date passed by conference

May 30, 2012

committee

Keywords

Aiding and abetting, defamation, fraud,obscenity, trespass to chattels

Status: In force

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, officially recorded as Republic Act No. 10175, is a law in
the Philippines approved on September 12, 2012. It aims to address legal issues concerning online
interactions and the Internet in the Philippines. Among the cybercrime offenses included in the bill
are cybersquatting, cybersex, child pornography, identity theft, illegal access to data and libel.[1]

While hailed for penalizing illegal acts done via the Internet that were not covered by old laws, the
act has been criticized for its provision on criminalizing libel, which is perceived to be a curtailment in
freedom of expression.
On October 9, 2012, the Supreme Court of the Philippines issued a temporary restraining order,
stopping implementation of the Act for 120 days, and extended it on 5 February 2013 "until further
orders from the court."[2][3]
On May 24, 2013, The DOJ announced that the contentious online libel provisions of the law had
been dropped.[4]
On February 18, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that section 5 of the law decision was constitutional,
and that sections 4-C-3, 7, 12 and 19 were unconstitutional.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybercrime_Prevention_Act_of_2012#History

Petitions to the Supreme Court[edit]

Several petitions have been submitted to the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of the
Act.[16] However, on October 2, the Supreme Court deferred on acting on the petitions, citing the
absence of justices which prevented the Court from sitting en banc.[17] The lack of a temporary
restraining order meant that the law went into effect as scheduled on October 3. In protest, Filipino
netizens reacted by blacking out their Facebook profile pictures and trending the hashtag
#notocybercrimelaw on Twitter. Anonymous also defaced government websites, including those of
the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System and
the Intellectual Property Office.
On October 9, 2012, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order, stopping
implementation of the Act for 120 days.[18] In early December, 2012, the government requested the
lifting of the TRO [19]

The Supreme Court scheduled the same amount of time on 15 January 2013 for oral arguments by
the petitioners, and on 22 January by the Solicitor General. [20] On 5 February 2013 The Supreme
Court extended the temporary restraining order on the law, "until further orders from the court." [2][3]
On August 2013, the Supreme Court issued a resolution ordering that the controlling title of the
Cybercrime Case will be "Jose Jesus M. Disini Jr. et al. v. Secretary of Justice, et al."

Revision of the law[edit]

On May 24, 2013, The DOJ announced that online libel provisions of the law have been dropped, as
well as other provisions that "are punishable under other laws already", like child pornography and
cybersquatting. The DOJ will endorse the revised law to the next 16th Congress of the Philippines.[4]
[21]

Supreme Court Ruling[edit]

On February 18, 2014, The Supreme Court ruled the online libel provision of the act to be
constitutional, although it struck down other provisions, including the ones that violated the
provisions on double jeopardy. The petitioners planned to appeal the decision. [5] [22][23]