Research Paper
According to Calimag M.G (2012) we need law and order in cyberspace, but it must not be used to stifle freedom of expression and intimidate citizens. The policy-making is only concerned about cybersecurity and not on cybercrime, which is basically investigative and enforcement work.
According to Santiago M.D, the Cybercrime Act is a law that dangerously limits the growth of the marketplace of ideas. It is presumed to be unconstitutional because it uses language that is overbroad, and language that is too vague. In other words, it violates the overbreadth doctrine and the void for vagueness doctrine in constitutional law.
In relation to the study, Morella C. stated that the aim of the wide-ranging law is to tackle a multiplicity of online crimes, including pornography, hacking, identity theft and spamming, following police complaints that they lacked the legal tools to combat them. The act also includes a provision that puts the country's criminal libel law into force in cyberspace but with far tougher penalties for Internet defamation than in traditional print media.
The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, also known as Republic Act 10175, may aim to bring crime-fighting into the 21st century by addressing harmful acts committed with the use of the worldwide web but it raises the risk of rights violations and curtailment of freedom of expression and of the press by expanding the concept of the criminalized act of libel. The law also raises the penal sentence for libel committed in cyberspace one year longer than that imposed in the Revise Penal Code for libel in general.
According to Carpio A., Supreme Court Associate Justice, the recently-signed Cybercrime Law may be unconstitutional since it adopted the libel provision of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) which may no longer be in conformance with Supreme Court decisions and international law when the Philippine government signed and ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
According to Santiago M.D, the Cybercrime Act is a law that dangerously limits the growth of the marketplace of ideas. It is presumed to be unconstitutional because it uses language that is overbroad, and language that is too vague. In other words, it violates the overbreadth doctrine and the void for vagueness doctrine in constitutional law.
In relation to the study, Morella C. stated that the aim of the wide-ranging law is to tackle a multiplicity of online crimes, including pornography, hacking, identity theft and spamming, following police complaints that they lacked the legal tools to combat them. The act also includes a provision that puts the country's criminal libel law into force in cyberspace but with far tougher penalties for Internet defamation than in traditional print media.
The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, also known as Republic Act 10175, may aim to bring crime-fighting into the 21st century by addressing harmful acts committed with the use of the worldwide web but it raises the risk of rights violations and curtailment of freedom of expression and of the press by expanding the concept of the criminalized act of libel. The law also raises the penal sentence for libel committed in cyberspace one year longer than that imposed in the Revise Penal Code for libel in general.
According to Carpio A., Supreme Court Associate Justice, the recently-signed Cybercrime Law may be unconstitutional since it adopted the libel provision of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) which may no longer be in conformance with Supreme Court decisions and international law when the Philippine government signed and ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).