magna carta for philippine internet freedom essay

MAGNA CARTA FOR PHILIPPINE INTERNET FREEDOM

• About the Blog
• About the Blogger
• Commentary Policy
• Do you need help?
• The Blogger’s CV
• The Blogger’s Resume

Why Support the Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom

I still remember a time hearing the chime of bells as one gets connected to the Internet. I still remember a time you could cook four strips of bacon and still wait a bit more for a file to download. I could still remember Netscape. Where in the time did Carmen Sandiego go?

Today you could surf the Web using the mobile. Contact and talk to family and friends via Facebook. Get the news, gossip and false news via Twitter. Speaking of news and opinion, today you could probably read something crafted in Washington, Tokyo, Paris and Mexico. Reading a newspaper is no longer just reading. In the past reader wanting to react a piece of news or opinion by sitting down writing letter to the editor and mailing it. Perhaps you could even call the newspaper. And still your opinion will only be seen if at the end of the day someone deems it worth publishing. Today, a reader can almost automatically write a reaction on the article/post comment track – something from blogs ( or weB logs) that can often be seen in online newspapers. And it does not stop there – and it does not stop at that a reaction can be transformed into several things online.

The Digital world has became fused to our lives. And even though there is still the great digital divide: only about 35% of the Philippine is on-line (We still have to work on closing this divide): the Internet and the Web has become an important part of Philippine Society. First , because the Internet has become the information highway of economic growth. Second , because Internet Communication Technology and Computers have became a critical part of our daily lives. And Third , for all its imperfection cyberspace is a forum for ideas and a bastion of freedom … a fortress of Democracy.

And this is why we, people from all walks of life, contributed this set of ideas, formed through words and built up to this document. A Magna Carta that extends all the rights, obligations, protection and duties between the People and its State to the Internet.

Last Monday, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago filed the MCPIF as Senate Bill 3327. This Quest does not end there. This is just the beginning. This will take a hundred … a thousand … a million … a billion times longer than cooking four strips of bacon … But we will get there -because it is not only our present at stake but the future of our sons and daughters.

3 Responses to Why Support the Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom

Pingback: “THE BETTER VIEW AND THE BETTER LAW” « akosiiandecilos

Pingback: Decilos, Jillian « AUSL Tech & Law

Pingback: Why Support the Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom « Democracy

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

To Give To Each What Is Due

Subscribe by RSS

Subscribe by email.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Recent Posts

• Ang Kuwento ng Dalawang Talumpati
• The Tale of Two Speeches
• My ASEAN2017 Journal: The launch of the ASEAN Chairmanship
• Diliman Dreamin
• What do the photos tell about the murder of Rolando Espinosa Sr.
• Asong Itim/The Black Dog
• What Did the Catholic Church Really Say About Cremation?
• Leoncio P. Deriada’s District De Molo to be staged at UP: 12 – 30 October 2016
• How would you regulate sugar?
• The Setting up of The Royal Society – Professor Michael Hunter
• Search for:

Search Categories

Commentary policy:.

Your comments are welcome. And will not be edited in anyway. But they will be removed if it is deemed by the blogger, me, as:

1. Defamatory 2. Abusive or incite hatred 3. Advertise commercial services 4. Excessively Off-topic, irrelevant or inane 5. Needlessly aggressive or rude

Juned Sonido

Recent Comments

• Gamaliel on Antonio Luna, science and the emerging Filipino national identity by Benjamin Vallejo Jr
• Jen Rucio on The Setting up of The Royal Society – Professor Michael Hunter
• Antonio Castillo on The Setting up of The Royal Society – Professor Michael Hunter

Contact Information

An old scottish toast.

Here is to you as good as you are Here s to me as bad as I am But as good as you are and as bad as I am I am as good as you as bad as I am

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

" THE MAGNA CARTA FOR PHILIPPINE INTERNET FREEDDOM " (Media, Information & Literacy

Related Papers

The Manila Times

Nelson Celis

LONG before the national broadband network (NBN) project that uncovered the ZTE scandal in 2007, there was the TOPWeb (The Office of the President Web) controversy in 1996. It resulted in a clamor from the information technology (IT) industry for a comprehensive investigation into the integrity of other large-scale government IT projects.

Jojo Anghang Tabang

christian alvarado

SSRN Electronic Journal

Erwin Gaspar Alampay

Rommel Casis

Mary Grace Mirandilla-Santos , Jonathan Brewer

Published in October 2018 by The Asia Foundation and the Better Broadband Alliance, with support from Google, this report examines how new and emerging technologies can improve internet access, quality, and affordability and explores how the country can transition from an analog-based to a digital-friendly policy environment that fosters increased innovation and investment. TAF managed the whole project, from conceptualization to publication and the continuous advocacy of the report’s key recommendations.

The report looks at the components of the digital economy in the Philippines to understand its current landscape. These include the physical infrastructure—through which data is transmitted—the devices, software, and the functionalities that these offer. It also provides a closer look at the benefits of the digital economy by looking at specific case studies, particularly the TESDA online portal for e-education and the konek2CARD for e-finance. The case studies show that the inclusion of the digital economy is facilitated by developments in infrastructure. An examination of the current policy environment shows that there are key plans in place for the development of a national broadband network in the Philippines. On the demand side, policies to take care of the privacy and data of the individual users are already in place. Finally, some conclusions and policy recommendations are made to further support the digital economy in the Philippines.

Asian-Pacific Economic Literature

Gemma Estrada , Jesus Felipe

RELATED PAPERS

Elisea Meurer

Pedro Alejandrino López Mosquera

Journal of the American Chemical Society

Gerald Larson

International Journal of Mass Spectrometry and Ion Processes

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

David Felipe Lima

Proceedings of the International Conference of Early Childhood Education (ICECE 2019)

MA Muazar Habibi

Nuclear Engineering and Design

Gopika Vinod

New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin

Andrew Heckert

SCHOOL EDUCATION JOURNAL PGSD FIP UNIMED

MOHAMMAD FAWAID Rosyadi

Revista Colombiana de Neumología

andres castro

Energy Conversion and Resources: Fuels and Combustion Technology, Energy, Nuclear Engineering, and Solar Engineering

Yitung Chen

European Journal of Neuroscience

Hideo Akaoka

Maria Luisa Hoffmann

International Journal of Infectious Diseases

Ismail Kalla

Journal of Biological Chemistry

Amartya Mishra

2010 IEEE International Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing

amadou matel diallo

Anesthesia & Analgesia

Anna Greta Taylor

P2M STKIP Siliwangi

Mekar Ismayani

Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.)

Frontiers in Materials

Guillaume Dupont

Annamária Nádor

arXiv (Cornell University)

Victor Ostrik

Clinical Epidemiology

Trà My Phạm

Nur Ilman Ilyas

See More Documents Like This

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Opportunities
• Free Speech
• Creativity and Innovation
• Transparency
• International
• Deeplinks Blog
• Press Releases
• Legal Cases
• Whitepapers
• Annual Reports
• Action Center
• Electronic Frontier Alliance
• Privacy Badger
• Surveillance Self-Defense
• Atlas of Surveillance
• Cover Your Tracks
• Crocodile Hunter
• Donate to EFF
• Giving Societies
• Other Ways to Give
• Membership FAQ

Search form

• Copyright (CC BY)
• Privacy Policy

A Brief Analysis of the Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom

The past couple of years have seen a growing interest in Internet regulation developed in a multistakeholder environment.  From Brazil to Jordan , such participatory processes have yielded mixed results, but around the world, many activists, policymakers, and other stakeholders remain optimistic that multistakeholder-developed regulation is possible.

Cut to the Philippines, where the Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom (MCPIF)—a crowdsourced document—was recently filed as House Bill No. 1086 by Rep. Kimi Cojuangco and as Senate Bill No. 53 by Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago.

If passed, the MCPIF would repeal Republic Act No. 10175 (the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012), which we joined several local organizations in opposing last year.  The MCPIF would also guarantee a host of other freedoms; here is our guide to some of the key elements of the bill:

Free Expression

Section 4 of the bill pertains to freedom of expression, “[protecting] and [promoting] freedom of speech and expression on the Internet” and protecting the right of the people to petition the government via the Internet for “redress of grievances.”  The right of citizens to publish to the Internet without the requirement of a license is also specifically addressed.

Section 4(c) limits State use of prior restraint or subsequent punishment in relation to Internet-related rights only upon a judicial order conforming with provisions laid out in Section 5, and only under certain circumstances.  Section 4(d) protects persons from being forced to remove content beyond their means or control, specifically addressing mirrored and archived content.

Although free expression is protected, Section 52 places limits on certain types of speech “inimical to the public interest”:

Internet libel: defined as “public and malicious expression tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead, made on the Internet or on public networks”;

Hate speech: defined as “public and malicious expression calling for the commission of illegal acts on an entire class of persons, a reasonably broad section thereof, or a person belonging to such a class, based on gender, sexual orientation, religious belief or affiliation, political belief or affiliation, ethnic or regional affiliation, citizenship, or nationality, made on the Internet or on public networks” and;

Child pornography.

Atypically, the definition of Internet hate speech is incredibly limited, with the Act stating that it shall not lie if the expression “does not call for the commission of illegal acts on the person or class of persons that, when they are done, shall cause actual criminal harm to the person or class of persons, under existing law” and if it “does not call for the commission of illegal acts posing an immediate lawless danger to the public or to the person who is the object of the expression.”

Universal access

While Section 5 explicitly promotes universal access to the Internet, Section 5(b) allows for the suspension of an individual’s Internet access as an accessory to other penalties upon conviction of certain crimes, with certain checks and balances.  

Remarkably, Section 5(e) prevents persons or entities offering Internet access for free or for a fee (including hotels, schools, and religious groups) from restricting access to the Internet or limiting content that may be accessed by guests, employees or others “without a reasonable ground related to the protection of the person or entity from actual or legal threats, the privacy of others who may be accessing the network, or the privacy and security of the network as provided for in the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173) or this Act.”

Section 7 addresses the right to innovation, allowing for State protection and promotion of innovation, and prohibiting persons from restricting or denying “the right to develop new information and communications technologies, without due process of law...”

With certain exceptions provided for in the Intellectual Property Code, Section 7(b) states that “no person shall be denied access to new information and communications technologies, nor shall any new information and communications technologies be blocked, censored, suppressed, or otherwise restricted, without due process of law or authority vested by law.”  Innovators are also protected from liability for the actions of users.

Right to Privacy

Section 8 provides for State promotion of the protection of the privacy of data, with Section 8(b) providing the right of users to employ encryption or cryptography “protect the privacy of the data or networks which such person owns or otherwise possesses real rights over.”

Section 8(d) guarantees a person’s right of privacy over his or her data or network rights, while 8(e) requires the State to maintain “appropriate level of privacy of the data and of the networks maintained by it.”

Section 9 refers to the protection of the security of data and 9(b) guarantees the right of persons to employ means “whether physical, electronic or behavioral” to protect the security of his or her data or networks.

Sections 9(c) and (d) refer to the rights of third parties over private data, requiring a court order issued in accordance with Section 5 of the Act to grant access, and preventing third parties from being given property rights to the data accessed.

Intellectual property

Section 10 protects intellectual property online in accordance with the existing Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (RA 8293).  10(c) prevents Internet service providers and telecommunications entities from gaining intellectual property rights over derivative content that is the result of “creation, invention, innovation, or modification by a person using the service provided by the Internet service provider, telecommunications entity, or such person providing Internet or data services.”  

Section 39 addresses fair use, declaring that “the viewing, use, editing, decompiling, or modification, of downloaded or otherwise offline content on any computer, device, or equipment shall be considered fair use” with certain provisions.  

Section 48 deals with intellectual property infringement, with 48(a)(ii) notably defining the “non-attribution or plagiarism of copyleft content” as defined in section 38 as infringement.

Other Areas

In addition to the sections detailed above, the Act covers a range of other issue areas, including hacking, cyber crime, and human trafficking.  The Act also creates an Office of Cybercrime within the Department of Justice to be designated as the central authority in enforcement of the Act.  Notably, special courts in which judges are required to have specific expertise in computer science or IT are also designated to hear and resolve all cases brought under the Act.

Overall, the crowdsourced Act is a success story and we support our allies in the Phillippines as they work to push it forward in the Senate.

Bonus : Read the story of how the Act was crowdsourced!

Related Issues

Join eff lists, discover more., related updates.

Federal Court Dimisses X's Anti-Speech Lawsuit Against Watchdog

This post was co-written by EFF legal intern Melda Gurakar. Researchers, journalists, and everyone else has a First Amendment right to criticize social media platforms and their content moderation practices without fear of being targeted by retaliatory lawsuits, a federal court recently ruled.The decision by a federal court in California to...

U.S. Supreme Court Does Not Go Far Enough in Determining When Government Officials Are Barred from Censoring Critics on Social Media

Meta Oversight Board’s Latest Policy Opinion a Step in the Right Direction

EFF welcomes the latest and long-awaited policy advisory opinion from Meta’s Oversight Board calling on the company to end its blanket ban on the use of the Arabic-language term “shaheed” when referring to individuals listed under Meta’s policy on dangerous organizations and individuals and calls on Meta to fully...

Lawmakers: Ban TikTok to Stop Election Misinformation! Same Lawmakers: Restrict How Government Addresses Election Misinformation!

In a case being heard Monday at the Supreme Court, 45 Washington lawmakers have argued that government communications with social media sites about possible election interference misinformation are illegal.Agencies can't even pass on information about websites state election officials have identified as disinformation, even if they don't request that any...

Thousands of Young People Told Us Why the Kids Online Safety Act Will Be Harmful to Minors

With KOSA passed, the information i can access as a minor will be limited and censored, under the guise of "protecting me", which is the responsibility of my parents, NOT the government. I have learned so much about the world and about myself through social media, and without the diverse ...

Analyzing KOSA’s Constitutional Problems In Depth 

Why EFF Does Not Think Recent Changes Ameliorate KOSA’s Censorship The latest version of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) did not change our critical view of the legislation. The changes have led some organizations to drop their opposition to the bill, but we still believe it is a...

5 Questions to Ask Before Backing the TikTok Ban

With strong bipartisan support, the U.S. House voted 352 to 65 to pass HR 7521 this week, a bill that would ban TikTok nationwide if its Chinese owner doesn’t sell the popular video app. The TikTok bill’s future in the U.S. Senate isn’t yet clear, but President Joe...

Why U.S. House Members Opposed the TikTok Ban Bill

What do House Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Barbara Lee have in common with House Republicans like Thomas Massie and Andy Biggs? Not a lot. But they do know an unconstitutional bill when they see one.These and others on both sides of the aisle were among the ...

SXSW Tried to Silence Critics with Bogus Trademark and Copyright Claims. EFF Fought Back.

Special thanks to EFF legal intern Jack Beck, who was the lead author of this post. Amid heavy criticism for its ties to weapons manufacturers supplying Israel, South by Southwest—the organizer of an annual conference and music festival in Austin—has been on the defensive. One tool in their arsenal: bogus...

Protect Yourself from Election Misinformation

Welcome to your U.S. presidential election year, when all kinds of bad actors will flood the internet with election-related disinformation and misinformation aimed at swaying or suppressing your vote in November. So… what’re you going to do about it? As EFF’s Corynne McSherry wrote in 2020 ,...

Back to top

Follow EFF:

Check out our 4-star rating on Charity Navigator .

• Internships
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Creativity & Innovation
• EFFector Newsletter
• Press Contact
• Join or Renew Membership Online
• One-Time Donation Online

The Online Regulation Series | The Philippines

Adam Southey Oct 7, 2020 4:16:43 PM

You can access the ORS Handbook here

The Philippines is one of the countries worst affected by terrorism in the world, ranking as the ninth most affected country in the 2019 Global Terrorist Index. The country has long been investing in its counterterrorism apparatus and there have been some signs that the Philippines might introduce legislation that targets online terrorist content. This is to be understood in the context of a growing internet penetration rate and increased use of social media (+8.6% in 2019-2020 ), coupled with growing concerns for how terrorists use the internet in the country.

Philippines’ regulatory framework:

• Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), July 2020, providing the legal framework for the country’s counterterrorism response.
• Cybercrime Prevention Act (CPA), September 2012, the country’s regulatory framework for the use of information and communication technologies.

Key takeaways for tech platforms:  

• To date, tech companies have been exempted from liability for user-generated content posted on their platforms.
• However, recent suggestions to expand the Anti-terrorism Act of 2020 to allow for the regulation of social media indicate that making tech platforms liable for online terrorist content is not absent from the public debate in the Philippines.

Counterterrorism legislation and incitement to terrorism

Whilst the South-East Asian country does not directly regulate online content, the recent Anti-Terrorism Act provides a basis for the criminalisation of terrorist content online via its penalisation of terrorist incitement. The ATA was signed into law in July 2020, replacing Philippines’ previous counterterrorism legislation ( Human Security Act of 2007 ). The ATA distinguishes between various types of terrorism, such as threats (any person threatening to commit a terrorist act), recruitment, incitement, and material support. Violations are tried in specific courts designated by the Supreme Court. The ATA also establishes an Anti-Terrorism Council, to be appointed directly by the President, overseeing terrorist investigations and with the power to “designate who is a “terrorist’” and authorise warrantless arrests.

Under the ATA, incitement of terrorism, “by mean of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other representations tending to the same end” is punished by life imprisonment without parole. The broad language used in the legislation allows for the penalisation of online material deemed to be inciting terrorism.

The legislation has been criticised by civil society and human rights groups – including Amnesty International and the Committee to Project Journalists – with critics warning that the ATA could be used to target government critics and that it threatens certain rights protected by the constitution. The main criticism concerns the criminalisation of incitement to terrorism, with critics concerned by the lack of clear definition of incitement which may provide “open-ended basis for prosecuting speech” as the Anti-Terrorism Council would be the unique arbiter of what constitutes a serious risk. The potential unconstitutionality of the law led to numerous petitions being signed to declare it unconstitutional. [1]

Opening an avenue for the criminalisation of terrorist use of the internet?

Even though the ATA does not explicitly address the issue of terrorist use of the internet, members of the Philippines’ armed forces have raised the possibility of extending the bill to cover regulation of social media. Such actors argue that this expansion could help counter “preparatory acts” of terrorism, for example by facilitating the traceability of content that can be used for radicalisation or financing purposes. For now, the extension of the ATA to social media remains a suggestion. Former justice secretary Franklin Drillon has said that such an expansion would be in violation of the country’s Bill of Rights, which enshrines freedom of information, whereas this law would impose regulation on service providers and social media platforms which might limit this.

Misuse of ICT

The legislation on Cybercrime Prevention acts as a framework for the use of information and communications technology (ICT) and lays out what are considered to be misuses and illegal access to ICT in the country, with individuals using online platforms being legally liable for content posted rather than tech companies. The legislation prohibits the use of ICT for any crimes penalised by the Philippines penal code and prohibits online defamatory content (known as “libel” content).

The prohibition of libel content online has led civil society groups to raise concerns about the law’s potential impact on freedom of information and freedom of expression, in particular due to the lack of a precise definition of what constitutes online defamation. Furthermore, as highlighted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation , libel in the Philippines is not adjudicated on what the author meant, but rather adjudication is based on the meaning the words used could have. This leaves substantial room for interpretation, and therefore presents some risk for freedom of expression, as users might be tempted to self-censor to avoid potential judicial consequences.

A Magna Carta for Internet Freedom

One of the most noteworthy aspects of online regulation in the Philippines might not be the actual legislations, but rather the civic initiatives that surrounded them. Indeed, the drafting of the CPA led a group of citizens (or netizens, as they called themselves) to propose a Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom (MCPIF). The Magna Carta was the product of a crowdsourcing effort from citizens concerned with digital rights. The MCPIF was drafted with participation from individuals with different backgrounds – including IT specialists, bloggers, human rights advocates, lawyers, and academics – using online platforms to share their ideas and proposition for the enshrinement of digital rights in the Philippines.

Supported by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago , the Magna Carta was created as a legislative response to the CPA that would ensure the protection of “the rights and freedoms of Filipinos in cyberspace”, as well as provide definitions for certain cybercrimes. In particular, the MCPIF was drafted so as to protect netizens from illegal searches and prevent the blocking or restriction of a website with appropriate legal due process. Whilst the MCPIF did not succeed in replacing the CPA, the crowdsourcing effort behind it led to the creation of Democracy.net.ph , an “Internet and ICT Rights Advocacy Organization” that is still active today.

[1] 25  petitions as of 6 August 2020. At the time of writing, the signatories are waiting to be heard in an open argument by the Supreme Court in September 2020.

Al-Jazeera (2020), “Philippine court asked to annul Duterte-backed anti-terror law”

Amnesty International (2020), “Philippines: Dangerous anti-terror law yet another setback for human rights”

Aspinwall Nick (2020), “After Signing Anti-Terrorism Law, Duterte Names His Targets” , Foreign Policy

Human Rights Watch (2020), “Philippines: New Anti-Terrorism Act Endangers Rights”

Institute for Economics & Peace (2019), Global Terrorism Index 2019: Measuring the Impact of Terrorism

Kemp Simon (2020), “Digital 2020: The Philippines” , DataReportal

Khaliq Riyaz (2020), “Philippines: Anti-terror act faces top court challenges”, Anadalou Agency

National Union of the Journalist of Philippines (2020), “No to criminalization of free speech” .

Pazzibugan Dona Z. (2020), “ SC sets hearings on anti-terrorism law in September” , Inquirer.net

The Propinoy Project (2014), “Why there should be a Magna Carta For Philippine Internet Freedom”

Ramos Christia M. (2020), “Parlade defends social media regulation proposal” , Inquirer.net

Ramos Marlon (2020), “AFP Dials down Facebook ‘regulation’”, Inquirer.net

Reporters Without Borders (2012, updated in 2016), “Cybercrime law's threat to freedom of information”

Sen. Santiago Miriam D. (2012), “Magna Carta For Internet Freedom To Replace Anti-Cybercrime Law” Senate of the Philippines

Yap Ben Dominic R., Protacio Jesus Paolo U., Lopez Jess Raymund M., and Lazaro Vladi Miguel S., (2020), “Anti-Terrorism Act signed into law” , Lexology.com

York Jillian (2012), “Philippines' New Cybercrime Prevention Act Troubling for Free Expression” , Electronic Frontier Foundation

• Counterterrorism (54)
• Analysis (52)
• Terrorism (39)
• Online Regulation (38)
• Violent Extremist (36)
• Regulation (33)
• Tech Responses (33)
• Europe (31)
• Government Regulation (27)
• Academia (25)
• Reports (21)
• Press Release (20)
• Guides (17)
• Workshop (11)
• Presentation (10)
• Fintech (6)
• Threat Intelligence (5)
• Webinar (5)
• Propaganda (3)
• Submissions (3)
• Generative AI (1)

The Online Regulation Series | Pakistan

The online regulation series | the european union, the online regulation series 2021 | nigeria.

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy .

Santiago files bill to replace Anti-Cybercrime Law

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines – Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago has filed a bill that seeks to replace the controversial Anti-Cybercrime Law.

Santiago filed Senate Bill 3327 also known as the Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom (MCPIF), which was proposed to the senator by a group of concerned netizens, including software designers, academics, bloggers, engineers, lawyers, etc. that will uphold freedom of expression in cyberspace.

“While it is important to crackdown on criminal activities on the Internet, protecting constitutional rights like free expression, privacy, and due process should hold a higher place in crafting laws,” Santiago said in a statement Friday.

“The MCPIF does not suffer from overbreadth and vagueness in its provisions on libel, unlike the law it tries to replace. In fact, it treats libel as a civil liability rather than a criminal act, which is a step forward in the move to decriminalize libel,” the senator said.

She also said that the MCPIF would not be like the Anti-Cybercrime Law that allows for illegal searches and seizures by authorities.

“[The Anti-Cybercrime Law] violates the right to privacy and the Constitutional guarantee against illegal search and seizure through allowing the warrantless real-time collection of traffic data,” Santiago said.

“In contrast, the MCPIF ensures due process by providing strict guidelines for any collection of any data, including the securing of warrants, obligating notification, and limiting seizure to data and excluding physical property,” she said.

The government will also no longer be allowed to block website on its own. She will require a court order before authorities can takedown or censor Internet sites under the MCPIF, Santiago said.

“The dangerous ‘takedown’ clause of RA 10175, where the government may have a website or network blocked or restricted without due process of law, is absent in the MCPIF,” she said.

“My bill specifically provides for court proceedings in cases where websites or networks are to be taken down, and prohibits censorship of content without a court order,” Santiago added.

MCPIF also supports the creation of a new executive department for Information and Communication Technology (ICT).

“Because of the broad range of responsibilities related to the enforcement of laws governing ICT, a department-level office should be established and its functions and jurisdiction should be clear-cut,” the senator said.

Provisions in the MCPIF seek to better equip law enforcement and military personnel to help them combat cyberterrorism as well as to defend from cyberattacks from any hostile entity.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

“We need to recognize that child pornography, child abuse, and human trafficking can be committed through the Internet, as much as hacking, piracy, and copyright infringement. We must define these evils in order for us to crush them,” Santiago said.

Disclaimer: Comments do not represent the views of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments which are inconsistent with our editorial standards. FULL DISCLAIMER

© copyright 1997-2024 inquirer.net | all rights reserved.

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy .

Santiago proposes Magna Carta for Internet

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago has filed a bill crafting a Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom (MCPIF) that would replace the recently enacted but still controversial Republic Act No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

Santiago’s Senate Bill No. 3327, that would repeal RA 10175, appears to be a more comprehensive measure providing not just prohibited acts and stiff penalties but also guarantees the rights and protection of Internet users in the country.

While it provides for the freedom of speech and expression on the Internet, it also penalizes Internet libel and hate speech.

While it protects the Internet as an open network, it provides stiff jail penalties and fines for such cybercrimes as hacking, cracking and phishing.

Santiago said her bill would protect the rights and freedoms of Filipinos in cyberspace, while defining and penalizing cybercrimes.

“While it is important to crack down on criminal activities on the Internet, protecting constitutional rights like free expression, privacy and due process should hold a higher place in crafting laws,” she said.

Freedom in cyberspace

Santiago said that unlike RA 10175, the MCPIF upholds the freedom of expression of Filipinos in cyberspace.

“The MCPIF does not suffer from overbreadth and vagueness in its provisions on libel, unlike the law it tries to replace. In fact, it treats libel as a civil liability rather than a criminal act, which is a step forward in the move to decriminalize libel,” Santiago said.

Cyberlaw ‘unconstitutional’

The Santiago bill proposes to repeal RA 10175, whose implementation has been suspended after the Supreme Court, acting on at least 15 petitions questioning the new law’s constitutionality, issued a 120-day temporary restraining order in October. It has set oral arguments on the case for next January.

Angry protests attended the entire process of approving the cybercrime bill, which President Aquino signed into law and which took effect on Oct. 3. Those critical of the new law include journalists’ groups, bloggers, netizens and some politicians who object in particular to the inclusion of libel as a cybercrime.

Santiago has argued that RA 10175 is unconstitutional because of its “overbreadth and vagueness” that makes certain Internet activities punishable.

She said that her bill differs from RA 10175 in that it guarantees citizens’ rights against illegal searches and seizures.

“RA 10175 violates the right to privacy and the constitutional guarantee against illegal search and seizure through allowing the warrantless real-time collection of traffic data,” Santiago said.

“In contrast, the MCPIF ensures due process by providing strict guidelines for any collection of any data, including the securing of warrants, obligating notification and limiting seizure to data and excluding physical property,” she added.

The senator said the MCPIF also mandates government agencies to provide security for the data they collect from citizens to ensure their right to privacy.

“The dangerous ‘takedown’ clause of

RA 10175, where the government may have a website or network blocked or restricted without due process of law, is absent in the MCPIF,” Santiago said.

“My bill specifically provides for court proceedings in cases where websites or networks are to be taken down and prohibits censorship of content without a court order,” she added.

The proposed MCPIF also prohibits double jeopardy, Santiago said.

The cybercrime law, on the other hand, allows double jeopardy through the prosecution of offenses committed against its provisions and prosecution of offenses committed against the Revised Penal Code and special laws, even though the offenses are from a single act, she said.

Santiago said the proposed Magna Carta also would clarify the mandate and organization of the proposed Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT), the creation of which is currently pending in Congress.

Handling cybercrimes

“Because of the broad range of responsibilities related to the enforcement of laws governing ICT, a department-level office should be established and its functions and jurisdiction should be clear-cut,” she said.

The senator said the MCPIF prepares the proposed DICT, law enforcement agencies and the military with provisions for handling cybercrimes.

Santiago said Section 47 of the bill provides amendments to the AFP (Armed Forces of the Philippines) Modernization Act to ensure the country has weapons and defenses against cyberattacks by terrorists, violent nonstate actors and rogue or enemy nation-states.

She added that the bill’s Section 48 mandates the Philippine National Police and the National Bureau of Investigation to combat cyberterrorism.

“We need to recognize that child pornography, child abuse and human trafficking can be committed through the Internet, as much as hacking, piracy and copyright infringement. We must define these evils in order for us to crush them,” Santiago said.

She said the proposed Magna Carta also provides for harnessing ICT for national development by ensuring that government agencies keep up with the realities of and advances in information technology, such as those involving consumer welfare and copyright laws.

Drafted by netizens

The senator, a former law professor, said her Magna Carta bill could become the first law to be crafted through crowdsourcing, which she describes as a process of getting the job done by tapping people on the Internet.

According to Santiago, it was concerned netizens that include software designers, information technology experts, academics, bloggers, engineers, lawyers and human rights advocates who went to her with a draft of the MCPIF.

She said the group formulated the MCPIF through discussions in an open Facebook group, e-mail, Google Hangout teleconferences and social media channels like Twitter.

Santiago said the country needs a more effective cyberlaws because information and communications technology and the Internet are the drivers of economic growth.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

She cited a 2012 report of the Department of Science and Technology that said the business process outsourcing industry, the information technology outsourcing industry and other outsourcing industries have contributed $11 billion in revenue, or an estimated 5.4 percent, to the gross domestic product of the country in 2011.

Subscribe to our technology news

Disclaimer: Comments do not represent the views of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments which are inconsistent with our editorial standards. FULL DISCLAIMER

© copyright 1997-2024 inquirer.net | all rights reserved.

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.