6/12/2017 16CybercrimescoveredunderCybercrimePreventionActRepublicAct10175DigitalFilipino:ECommerceinthePhilippines

16CybercrimescoveredunderCybercrimePreventionAct
RepublicAct10175
digitalfilipino.com /introductioncybercrimepreventionactrepublicact10175/
9/17/2012

RepublicAct10175CybercrimePreventionAct wassignedintolawlastSeptember12,2012.Thislawisalready
ineffectastheSupremeCourtupholditsconstitutionality(February18,2014).Althoughsomeprovisionswere
deemedasunconstitutional(struckdown)particularlySections4(c)(3),7,12,and19.

Itisalawconsideredtobe11yearsinthemakingasvariousgroups,organizations,andpersonalitieslobbiedforits
passage.Ittookawhileforthelawtobepassedaslegislatorsandvariousstakeholdersneedtounderstandthe
magnitudeofcybercrimeandwhetherthepenaltyprovisionsindicatedintheECommerceLawRepublicAct8792
issufficientornot.

AtaPTV4ForumonAntiCybercrimeLaw,DepartmentofJusticeAssistantSecretaryGeronimoSyexplainedthat
lawsoncybercrimeareconsideredasthe3rdbuildingblockoflegislationsnecessarytoprotectthepeoplefrom
crimescommittedincyberspaceanduseofICT.Ialwayslookatcybercrimeassomethingunderthe2ndblockor
specialpenallaws(whereIthinktheECommerceLawisin).Althoughitseemsthereisnowasetoflawsinplace
thatarealreadyinthat3rdblockandincreasingfurther(whichmayalreadyincludetheECommerceLawasitisthe
firstpolicyinplaceagainsthackingandonlinepiracy).AsweuseandintegrateICTandInternetinourlives,perhaps
itispossiblethatnewformsofcrimescanhappenonlineandwherebroaderorspeciallegislationwillhavetobe
created(thatprovidesmandateforresourceallotmenttoo).Nevertheless,thatperspective,whetheragreeableor
not,bringstheimportanceofhavingmoreorganizedgroupsofnetizenswhocaninteractwithpolicymakers
proactivelyonInternet/ICTrelatedpoliciesanddoitsshareofstakeholderconsultation.

Frommyreviewandunderstanding,thelaw:

1.Penalizes(section8)sixteentypesofcybercrime(Section4).Theyare:

TypesofCybercrime Penalty

1.Illegalaccess Prisionmayor(imprisonmentofsixyearsand1
Unauthorizedaccess(withoutright)toacomputersystemor dayupto12years)orafineofatleastTwo
application. hundredthousandpesos(P200,000)uptoa
maximumamountcommensuratetothe
damageincurredorBOTH.If
committedagainstcritical
infrastructure:Reclusiontemporal
(imprisonmentfortwelveyearsandonedayup
totwentyyears)orafineofatleastFive
hundredthousandpesos(P500,000)uptoa
maximumamountcommensuratetothe
damageincurredorBOTH

2.Illegalinterception sameasabove
Unauthorizedinterceptionofanynonpublictransmissionof
computerdatato,from,orwithinacomputersystem.
6/12/2017 16CybercrimescoveredunderCybercrimePreventionActRepublicAct10175DigitalFilipino:ECommerceinthePhilippines

3.DataInterference sameasabove
Unauthorizedalteration,damaging,deletionordeteriorationof
computerdata,electronicdocument,orelectronicdata
message,andincludingtheintroductionortransmissionof
viruses.Authorizedactioncanalsobecoveredbythisprovisionif
theactionofthepersonwentbeyondagreedscoperesultingto
damagesstatedinthisprovision.

4.SystemInterference sameasabove
Unauthorizedhinderingorinterferencewiththefunctioningofa
computerorcomputernetworkbyinputting,transmitting,
damaging,deleting,deteriorating,alteringorsuppressing
computerdataorprogram,electronicdocument,orelectronic
datamessages,andincludingtheintroductionortransmissionof
viruses.Authorizedactioncanalsobecoveredbythisprovisionif
theactionofthepersonwentbeyondagreedscoperesultingto
damagesstatedinthisprovision.

5.Misuseofdevices sameasaboveexceptfineshouldbeno
Theunauthorizeduse,possession,production,sale, morethanFivehundredthousandpesos
procurement,importation,distribution,orotherwisemaking (P500,000).
available,ofdevices,computerprogramdesignedoradaptedfor
thepurposeofcommittinganyoftheoffensesstatedinRepublic
Act10175.Unauthorizeduseofcomputerpassword,access
code,orsimilardatabywhichthewholeoranypartofa
computersystemiscapableofbeingaccessedwithintentthatit
beusedforthepurposeofcommittinganyoftheoffensesunder
RepublicAct10175.

6.Cybersquatting sameasabove
AcquisitionofdomainnameovertheInternetinbadfaithto
profit,mislead,destroyreputation,anddepriveothersfromthe
registeringthesame.Thisincludesthoseexistingtrademarkat
thetimeofregistrationnamesofpersonsotherthanthe
registrantandacquiredwithintellectualpropertyinterestsin
it.Thosewhogetdomainnamesofprominentbrandsand
individualswhichinturnisusedtodamagetheirreputationcan
besuedunderthisprovision.Notethatfreedomofexpression
andinfringementontrademarksornamesofpersonareusually
treatedseparately.Apartycanexercisefreedomofexpression
withoutnecessarilyviolatingthetrademarksofabrandornames
ofpersons.

7.ComputerrelatedForgery Prisionmayor(imprisonmentofsixyearsand1
Unauthorizedinput,alteration,ordeletionofcomputerdata dayupto12years)orafineofatleastTwo
resultingtoinauthenticdatawiththeintentthatitbeconsidered hundredthousandpesos(P200,000)uptoa
oracteduponforlegalpurposesasifitwereauthentic, maximumamountcommensuratetothe
regardlesswhetherornotthedataisdirectlyreadableand damageincurredorBOTH.
intelligibleorTheactofknowinglyusingcomputerdatawhichis
theproductofcomputerrelatedforgeryasdefinedhere,forthe
purposeofperpetuatingafraudulentordishonestdesign.
6/12/2017 16CybercrimescoveredunderCybercrimePreventionActRepublicAct10175DigitalFilipino:ECommerceinthePhilippines

8.ComputerrelatedFraud sameasaboveProvided,Thatifnodamage
Unauthorizedinput,alteration,ordeletionofcomputerdataor hasyetbeencaused,thepenaltyimposed
programorinterferenceinthefunctioningofacomputersystem, shallbeone(1)degreelower.
causingdamagetherebywithfraudulentintent.

9.ComputerrelatedIdentityTheft sameasabove
Unauthorizedacquisition,use,misuse,transfer,possession,
alterationordeletionofidentifyinginformationbelongingto
another,whethernaturalorjuridical.

10.Cybersex Prisionmayor(imprisonmentofsixyearsand1
Willfulengagement,maintenance,control,oroperation,directly dayupto12years)orafineofatleastTwo
orindirectly,ofanylasciviousexhibitionofsexualorgansor hundredthousandpesos(P200,000)butnot
sexualactivity,withtheaidofacomputersystem,forfavoror exceedingOnemillionpesos(P1,000,000)or
consideration.Thereisadiscussiononthismatterifitinvolves BOTH.
couplesorpeopleinrelationshipwhoengageincybersex.
Foraslongitisnotdoneforfavororconsideration,Idontthink
itwillbecovered.However,ifoneparty(inacoupleor
relationship)suesclaimingtobeforcedtodocybersex,thenit
canbecovered.

11.ChildPornography Penaltytobeimposedshallbeone(1)degree
UnlawfulorprohibitedactsdefinedandpunishablebyRepublic higherthanthatprovidedforinRepublicAct
ActNo.9775ortheAntiChildPornographyActof2009, 9775,ifcommittedthroughacomputersystem.
committedthroughacomputersystem.

******UnsolicitedCommercialCommunications(SPAMMING)
THISPROVISIONWASSTRUCKDOWNBYTHESUPREME
COURTASUNCONSTITUTIONAL.

12.Libel Penaltytobeimposedshallbeone(1)degree
UnlawfulorprohibitedactsoflibelasdefinedinArticle355ofthe higherthanthatprovidedforbytheRevised
RevisedPenalCode,asamendedcommittedthrougha PenalCode,asamended,andspeciallaws,as
computersystemoranyothersimilarmeanswhichmaybe thecasemaybe.
devisedinthefuture.RevisedPenalCodeArt.355statesLibel
meansbywritingsorsimilarmeans.Alibelcommittedby
meansofwriting,printing,lithography,engraving,radio,
phonograph,painting,theatricalexhibition,cinematographic
exhibition,oranysimilarmeans,shallbepunishedbyprision
correccionalinitsminimumandmediumperiodsorafine
rangingfrom200to6,000pesos,orboth,inadditiontothecivil
actionwhichmaybebroughtbytheoffendedparty.The
CybercrimePreventionActstrengthenedlibelintermsofpenalty
provisions.

Theelectroniccounterpartoflibelhasbeenrecognizedsincethe
year2000whentheECommerceLawwaspassed.TheE
CommerceLawempoweredallexistinglawstorecognizeits
electroniccounterpartwhethercommercialornotinnature.
6/12/2017 16CybercrimescoveredunderCybercrimePreventionActRepublicAct10175DigitalFilipino:ECommerceinthePhilippines

13.AidingorAbettinginthecommissionofcybercrime Imprisonmentofone(1)degreelowerthanthat
Anypersonwhowillfullyabetsoraidsinthecommissionofany oftheprescribedpenaltyfortheoffenseora
oftheoffensesenumeratedinthisActshallbeheldliable. fineofatleastOnehundredthousandpesos
(P100,000)butnotexceedingFivehundred
thousandpesos(P500,000)orboth.

14.AttemptinthecommissionofcybercrimeAnyperson sameasabove
whowillfullyattemptstocommitanyoftheoffensesenumerated
inthisActshallbeheldliable.

15.AllcrimesdefinedandpenalizedbytheRevisedPenalCode, Penaltytobeimposedshallbeone(1)degree
asamended,andspeciallaws,ifcommittedby,throughandwith higherthanthatprovidedforbytheRevised
theuseofinformationandcommunicationstechnologiesshallbe PenalCode,asamended,andspeciallaws,as
coveredbytherelevantprovisionsofthisAct. thecasemaybe.

Althoughnotexactlyacybercrime,Iamincludingthishereas
penaltiesarealsoimposedbythelaw.
16.CorporateLiability.(Section9)
Whenanyofthepunishableactshereindefinedareknowingly
committedonbehalfoforforthebenefitofajuridicalperson,by
anaturalpersonactingeitherindividuallyoraspartofanorgan
ofthejuridicalperson,whohasaleadingpositionwithin,based
on:(a)apowerofrepresentationofthejuridicalpersonprovided
theactcommittedfallswithinthescopeofsuchauthority(b)an
authoritytotakedecisionsonbehalfofthejuridical
person.Provided,Thattheactcommittedfallswithinthescope
ofsuchauthorityor(c)anauthoritytoexercisecontrolwithinthe
juridicalperson,Italsoincludescommissionofanyofthe
punishableactsmadepossibleduetothelackofsupervisionor
control.
Forsanctionedactions,Juridicalpersonshall
beheldliableforafineequivalenttoatleast
doublethefinesimposableinSection7uptoa
maximumofTenmillionpesos
(P10,000,000).Forneglectsuchasmisuseof
computerresourcesthatresultedtocybercrime
committedinorganizationphysicalorvirtual
premisesorresources,juridicalpersonshallbe
heldliableforafineequivalenttoatleast
doublethefinesimposableinSection7uptoa
maximumofFivemillionpesos
(P5,000,000).Criminalliabilitymaystillapplyto
thenaturalperson.

IfyouaregoingtoincludeallprovisionsintheRevisedPenalCode,therecanevenbemorethan16typesof
cybercrimeasaresult.

2.Liabilityonotherlaws

Section7wasstruckdownbySupremeCourtasitviolatedtheprovisionondoublejeopardy.

3.Jurisdiction

(a)TheRegionalTrialCourtdesignatedspecialcybercrimecourtsshallhavejurisdictionoveranyviolationofthe
provisionsofthisActincludinganyviolationcommittedbyaFilipinonationalregardlessoftheplaceofcommission.
JurisdictionshalllieifanyoftheelementswascommittedwithinthePhilippinesorcommittedwiththeuseofany
computersystemwhollyorpartlysituationinthecountry,orwhenbysuchcommissionanydamageiscausedtoa
naturalorjuridicalpersonwho,atthetimetheoffensewascommitted,wasinthePhilippines.(section21)

(b)Forinternationalandtransnationalcybercrimeinvestigationandprosecution,allrelevantinternational
instrumentsoninternationalcooperationincriminalmaters,arrangementsagreedonthebasisofuniformor
reciprocallegislation,anddomesticlaws,tothewidestextentpossibleforthepurposesofinvestigationsor
proceedingsconcerningcriminaloffensesrelatedtocomputersystemsanddata,orforthecollectionofevidencein
electronicformofacriminaloffenseshallbegivenfullforceandeffect.(section21)
6/12/2017 16CybercrimescoveredunderCybercrimePreventionActRepublicAct10175DigitalFilipino:ECommerceinthePhilippines

ThisgivesthePhilippinestheabilitytoparticipateintreatiesandofmutualcooperationwithcountriesthathave
counterpartlegislationeffectivelyespeciallyoncybercrimecasesthathaveteammembersorvictimsresidingin
thePhilippines.

4.ResponsibilitiesofthePhilippineNationalPolice(PNP)andNationalBureauofInvestigation(NBI)

Thelawgavepoliceauthoritiesthemandateitneedstoinitiateinvestigationtoprocessthevariouscomplaints/
reportitgetsfromcitizens.Thereareinstancesofonlineattacks,doneanonymously,wherevictimsapproachpolice
authoritiesforhelp.Theyoftenfindthemselveslostingettinginvestigationassistanceaspoliceauthoritiescant
effectivelyinitiateaninvestigation(onlydospecialrequest)astheirlegalauthoritytorequestforlogsordatadoes
notexistatallunlessacaseisalreadyfiled.(whichincaseofanonymouslydonewillbehardtoinitiate)

Itrulybelieveingivingcitizenvictims,regardlessofstature,thenecessaryinvestigationassistancetheydeserve.This
lawgaveourpoliceauthoritiesjustthat.

ThePNPandNBIshallberesponsiblefortheenforcementofthislaw.Thisincludes:

(a)ThePNPandNBIaremandatedtoorganizeacybercrimeunitorcentermannedbyspecialinvestigatorsto
exclusivelyhandlecasesinvolvingviolationsofthisAct.(Section10).

(b)ThePNPandNBIarerequiredtosubmittimelyandregularreportsincludingpreoperation,postoperation,and
investigationresultsandsuchotherdocumentsasmayberequiredtotheDepartmentofJusticeforreviewand
monitoring.(Section11)

(c)THESUPREMECOURTSTRUCKDOWNSECTION12THATISSUPPOSEDTOauthorizelawenforcement
authorities,withoutcourtwarrant,tocollectorrecordbytechnicalorelectronicmeanstrafficdatainreal
timeassociatedwithspecifiedcommunicationstransmittedbymeansofacomputersystem.(Section12)Gettinga
COURTWARRANTisamust.

(d)Mayorderaonetimeextensionofanothersix(6)monthsoncomputerdatarequestedforpreservation.
Provided,Thatoncecomputerdatapreserved,transmittedorstoredbyserviceproviderisusedasevidenceina
case,themerefurnishingtosuchserviceproviderofthetransmittaldocumenttotheOfficeoftheProsecutorshallbe
deemedanotificationtopreservethecomputerdatauntiltheterminationofthecase.(Section13)

(e)Carryoutsearchandseizurewarrantsoncomputerdata.(section15)Oncedone,turnovercustodyinasealed
mannertocourtswithin48hours(section16)unlessextensionfornomorethan30dayswasgivenbythecourts
(section15).

(f)Uponexpirationoftimerequiredtopreservedata,policeauthoritiesshallimmediatelyandcompletelydestroythe
computerdatasubjectofapreservationandexamination.(section17)

5.Responsibilityofserviceproviders(SP)

Serviceproviderrefersanypublicorprivateentitythatprovidestousersofitsservicetheabilitytocommunicateby
meansofacomputersystem,andprocessesorstorescomputerdataonbehalfofsuchcommunicationserviceor
usersofsuchservice.(Section3(n).

(a)SPuponreceiptofacourtwarrantfrompoliceauthoritiestodiscloseorsubmitsubscribersinformation,traffic
dataorrelevantdatainitspossessionorcontrolshallcomplywithinseventytwo(72)hoursfromreceiptoftheorder
inrelationtoavalidcomplaintofficiallydocketedandassignedforinvestigationandthedisclosureisnecessaryand
relevantforthepurposeofinvestigation.(section14)

(b)Theintegrityoftrafficdataandsubscriberinformationrelatingtocommunicationservicesprovidedbyaservice
providershallbepreservedforaminimumofsix(6)monthsperiodfromthedateofthetransaction.Contentdata
6/12/2017 16CybercrimescoveredunderCybercrimePreventionActRepublicAct10175DigitalFilipino:ECommerceinthePhilippines

shallbesimilarlypreservedforsix(6)monthsfromthedateofreceiptoftheorderfromlawenforcementauthorities
requiringitspreservation.(Section13)

(c)Oncecomputerdatapreserved,transmittedorstoredbyserviceproviderisusedasevidenceinacase,themere
furnishingtosuchserviceproviderofthetransmittaldocumenttotheOfficeoftheProsecutorshallbedeemeda
notificationtopreservethecomputerdatauntiltheterminationofthecase.(Section13)

(d)Uponexpirationoftimerequiredtopreservedata,SPshallimmediatelyandcompletelydestroythecomputer
datasubjectofapreservationandexamination.(section17)

(e)FailuretocomplywiththeprovisionsofChapterIVspecificallytheordersfromlawenforcementauthoritiesshall
bepunishedasaviolationofPresidentialDecreeNo.1829withimprisonmentofprisioncorreccionalinitsmaximum
periodorafineofOnehundredthousandpesos(P100,000)orbothforeachandeverynoncompliancewithan
orderissuedbylawenforcementauthorities.

ServiceProviderprotectioninsofarasliabilityisconcernisalreadycoveredundertheECommerceLaw.

6.Responsibilityofindividuals

(a)Individualsuponreceiptofacourtwarrantbeingrequiredtodiscloseorsubmitsubscribersinformation,traffic
dataorrelevantdatainhispossessionorcontrolshallcomplywithinseventytwo(72)hoursfromreceiptoftheorder
inrelationtoavalidcomplaintofficiallydocketedandassignedforinvestigationandthedisclosureisnecessaryand
relevantforthepurposeofinvestigation.

(b)FailuretocomplywiththeprovisionsofChapterIVspecificallytheordersfromlawenforcementauthoritiesshall
bepunishedasaviolationofPresidentialDecreeNo.1829withimprisonmentofprisioncorreccionalinitsmaximum
periodorafineofOnehundredthousandpesos(P100,000)orbothforeachandeverynoncompliancewithan
orderissuedbylawenforcementauthorities.

7.Inadmissibleevidence

(a)Anyevidenceprocuredwithoutavalidwarrantorbeyondtheauthorityofthesameshallbeinadmissibleforany
proceedingbeforeanycourtortribunal.(section18)

8.Accesslimitation

TheSupremeCourtstruckdownSection19ofthelawthatgivestheDepartmentofJusticepowerstoorderthe
blockingofaccesstoasiteprovidedthereisprimafacieevidencesupportingit.

9.Cybercrimenewauthorities

(a)OfficeofCybercrimewithintheDOJdesignatedasthecentralauthorityinallmattersrelatingtointernational
mutualassistanceandextradition.(section23)

(b)CybercrimeInvestigationandCoordinatingCenter(CICC)aninteragencybodytobecreatedunderthe
administrativesupervisionoftheOfficeofthePresident,forpolicycoordinationamongconcernedagenciesandfor
theformulationandenforcementofthenationalcybersecurityplan.(section24)

CICCwillbeheadedbytheExecutiveDirectoroftheInformationandCommunicationsTechnologyOfficeunderthe
DepartmentofScienceandTechnologyasChairpersonwiththeDirectoroftheNBIasViceChairpersontheChiefof
thePNP,HeadoftheDOJOfficeofCybercrimeandone(1)representativefromtheprivatesectorandacademe,as
members.(section25)

TheCICCisthecybercrimeczartaskedtoensurethislawiseffectivelyimplemented.(section26)
6/12/2017 16CybercrimescoveredunderCybercrimePreventionActRepublicAct10175DigitalFilipino:ECommerceinthePhilippines

Althoughthelawspecificallystatedafiftymillionpesos(P50,000,000)annualbudget,thedeterminationaswhereit
wouldgoorallottedto,IassumeshallbetotheCICC.

DEBATE/DISPUTEontheCybercrimePreventionAct.

Inmydiscussionwithlawyers,journalist,bloggers,amongothers,concernswereraisedonhowthelawcanbein
violationoftheConstitutionandotherlaws.Thisincludes:

1.Discriminationagainstonlinecrime.

Incrimescommittedonline,thelawgiveshigherpenaltycomparedtoitsofflinecounterpart.Thisisseenasviolation
ofprincipleswithintheECommerceLawwherebothofflineandonlineevidenceisgivenequalweight.Inits
implementingrulesandregulations,italsoindicatednottogivespecialbenefitorpenaltytoelectronictransactions
justbecauseitiscommittedonline.

However,Inotethatperhapsthereasonforthisalsoistoincreasethepenalties.TheoriginalRevisedPenalCodefor
examplegivespenaltyforlibelintheamountofuptosixthousandpesos(P6,000).

2.DidtheCybercrimeLawcriminalizedonlinelibel?Willitresulttodoublejeopardy?

SomeseetheCybercrimeLawasenablingcriminalizationofonlinelibel.Ithinkthatisnotcorrect.

LibelbeingacriminaloffensewasdefinedundertheRevisedPenalCode.

TheECommerceLawempoweredallexistinglawstorecognizeitselectroniccounterpart.Itrecognizedboth
commercialandnoncommercialinform.Thismadeelectronicdocuments(textmessage,email,webpages,blog
post,etc)admissibleasevidenceincourt(andcantbedeniedlegaladmissibilityjustbecauseitiselectronicform
andhavethesameprimaryevidenceweight).Existingpenaltiesunderthelawswhereoffensefallinshallapply.That
iswhyfilingoflibelcasescommittedelectronicallybecamepossibleinthepastyears(andtherewerecasesfiled,
somewon,somelost,andsomeareongoing).

LibelisalreadyacriminaloffenseundertheRevisedPenalCodeasis.Thenitgotextendedtoitselectronicform
since2000(withtherecognitionofitselectronicformprovidedbytheECommerceLaw)withexistingpenalties
applyingtoit.WiththeCybercrimeLaw,itincreasedthepenaltyfurtherifcommittedwiththeuseofICT.

AccordingtoAtty.GeronimoSy(DepartmentofJustice),duringthePTV4ForumonAntiCybercrimeLaw,a
complaintonelectroniclibelwillonlyhaveone(1)casetobefiled.Themaximumpenaltyforelectroniclibelis8
years.

HittingtheLikebuttononFacebookdoesnotmakeyoucommittheactoflibel.InthisANCinterview,SenatorEd
Angaraclarifiedthatpostingacommentwhereyougettoshareyourthoughtsiscoveredunderprotected
expression.

TheamountofpenaltyisstilltobesetbytheDOJasthereisusuallynoautomaticdegreescalinginspecialpenal
laws.Ifapersonwhogotaccusedofcommittingelectroniclibelalsodidthesameintraditional(offline)form,onlyone
caseshallbefiled.ItwillbeinterestingtoseehowtheDOJwillimplementthescalingineffectasaresultofthis.

ThementionoflibelintheCybercrimeLawisthemostcontestedprovisioninthelaw.Theadditionalpenaltiesisseen
tocurtailfreedomofexpression.MostofthepetitionsagainsttheCybercrimeLawfocusedonthisprovision.

NumerouslegislatorsarealreadyexpressinginterestaswellinamendingtheCybercrimeLawandRevisedPenal
Code.

3.Realtimedataaccess
6/12/2017 16CybercrimescoveredunderCybercrimePreventionActRepublicAct10175DigitalFilipino:ECommerceinthePhilippines

Iappreciatetheneedforrealtimeaccesstodata,suchascellulartrafficdata,especiallyintrackingscammersand
anycriticalincidentasithappens(suchaskidnappingandotherinprogresscrimes)whereimmediateaccessis
important.

However,theminingofthisdataforsurveillancecanbeseenassubjectabuse.Furthermore,ifnointerventionsuch
asajudgeapproval,comesfirstbeforegettingaccesswhereneedcanbejustified.

AlthoughIthinkthiswillslowdowntheprocessifanythingneedscourtapprovalfirst.Butotherpartiesbelievethat
thisisamustrequirement.AstheSupremeCourtstruckdownSection12,Ihopeprocesseswillbesetupto
assistlawenforcementwithitsinvestigation,tofastencourtwarrantissuance,especiallyasitreceives
complaintsfromvictimsofcybercrime.

AstheCybercrimeLawgetsupheldbytheSupremeCourt,herearemypersonalnotesonthe
developmentofitsimplementingrulesandregulations:

1.Ensurethatproceduresforpoliceassistanceandsecuringcourtorderswillbefairregardlesswhether
complainantscanaffordalawyerornottoassistthem.

2.Maketheprocessfordataaccessefficientsothattextandonlinescamsculpritscanbemadeaccountablesoon
whileensuringthatthedatacollectedwontbeabused.

IamgladthatlobbyingmovestostrikedownthewholeCybercrimePreventionAct(RepublicAct10175)did
notprosper.Thelawhasgreaterpurposesandintentionsthatcanbehelpfulinprotectingtheinterestof
ournetizensandcountryonline.