By Angie M. Rosales
Measures on safeguards in Cyber law to be introduced, senator says
The principal sponsor of the controversial Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 yesterday expressed misgivings over the authority that the new law has granted to the Department of Justice (DoJ) in taking down hacked websites as it has effectively given the secretary immense power, especially in the absence of any safeguard measures.
“I’m not questioning that kind of authority but I’m saying that we should have put safeguards in the exercise of that authority to ensure such acts will not be whimsical and capricious,” Sen. Edgardo Angara yesterday said, adding that he will be taking steps to correct the situation, pledging to file a measure to amend that provision which would include the requirement of a court order before the Justice secretary clamps down on any website unless there is clear and present danger.
Angara already bared plans of filing remedial measures when Congress resumes sessions on
Monday, Oct. 8 to address the possible misuse of section 4 of R.A. 10175.
He asked Justice Secretary Leila de Lima to suspend its implementation pending the ruling of the Supreme Court on the petitions filed against the implementation of the new law, citing the absence of any implementing rules and regulations (IRR).
“There are no parameters yet, no safeguards on the exercise of that authority because stopping an access to a website is immense power,” he said.
“In the process of law-making, that’s a give and take situation. You cannot avoid some oversights like that. That is not, I think, intentional. It’s not deliberate that the Senate or House wants to destroy the rights of anybody because this (law) is precisely to protect and advance the freedom of the internet, for people to have confidence whenever one uses the internet to e-mail, blog, Twitter or Facebook,” he added.
But on the matter of the said “take down” provision, the senator said it should be the same as enforcing arrests or seizures which require a court-issued warrant based “not just on prima facie evidence but probable cause.”
In seeking to amend the said provision, Angara intends to import the principles of search warrant and arrest to address concerns over the Cybercrime Law.
At the same time, however, and on the defensive, Angara described as an exaggeration the fears raised by those protesting the enactment of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 over its unconstitutionality, saying that it poses no threat to anyone’s freedom even if it needs some “corrective” measures immediately.
“This apprehension about libel and everyone now is slandering somebody through the internet is afraid that he will be convicted is exaggerated,” Angara told reporters in a news forum at the Senate.
“Freedom of speech and press does not protect libelous or malicious statements. That is always outside the scope of free speech. There is absolutely no issue, I think, in the violation of freedom of speech or press in this regard,” he added.
Angara belied critics’ claim, including the assertion made by colleague, Sen. Teofisto “TG” Guingona, on the matter of the usage of the social networking sites being restricted by the law.
Issues such as “retweeting” messages among Twitter account holders and “liking” or “sharing” what could be considered as libelous comments or materials in one’s Facebook account would make a person liable to libel charges, critics have said.
“The affected party would only be the one who committed the slander or libel against a known person. But those making comments in blogs, (the law does) not have any effect on it. Same with the columnists. The idea is that freedom of speech does not affect libelous or slanderous statements or remark. That has never been the intent either in America or in France where it was born. Neither is it in the Philippines.
“Sharing” of the information culled from social media would not suffice as a ground as well for any criminal liability if the person merely stood as an “audience” or a non-party to the issue, the senator said.
But even if there was apparent “conspiracy” among the internet users, still, Angara said, it would be difficult to hurdle the matter of proving conspiracy.
But the matter of effectively increasing the penalty on libel under the cyber-related law, the chairman of the Senate committee on science and technology pointed out that the rationale behind this move rests on the novelty and the swiftness, spread and reach of information communications technology (ICT).
While the senator had underscored the issue of decriminalizing libel as the solution to the issue at hand, Angara emphasized that there is no need to repeal the libel law.
“Let’s not go to the other extreme. Let’s have a balanced view of things. I’m just saying to those who want to repeal libel provisions in the Cybercrime, that is still ineffective because libel would still be a crime since it is under the basic criminal code. The solution is to repeal the basic law of libel in the revised penal code then the cybercrime libel becomes academic.
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) asked for sufficient time for the arrest of hackers, admitting that the current investigation it is undertaking against more than 20 “hactivists” behind the hacking of websites of some government agencies yielded positive results.
This was disclosed by NBI special investigator ng Computer Crime Division Joey Narciso saying it is only a matter of time for the arrest of these hackers.
He added that the agency has tha competence to determine the location of hackers and know how to effect arrest after finalizing the investigation.
This, even as the DoJ claimed that going after cyber criminals is not a priority.
It was the turn of bloggers to file a petition before the Supreme Court (SC) challenging Republic Act 10175, which they referred to as cyber-Martial Law.
In a 74-page petition filed by lawyer Kristoffer James Purisima, the group composed of online political and social pundits urged the tribunal to hand down a restraining order against the implementation of the law.
Named as one of the respondents in the case was President Aquino.
The petitioners reiterated earlier claims that the Cybercrime law should be declared unconstitutional for violaing their right to privacy and the privacy of communication and correspondence.
The law also constitutes unreasonable government intrusion as it renders existing safeguards against invasion of privacy nugatory or inutile.
One of the petitioners said the law is not just an attack on individual rights of netizens but the right of the people as a whole, insofar as it sends a chilling effect on citizens using the social media.
He claimed bloggers and users of social media such as Facebook and Twitter could not help but feel betrayed since they had felt responsible in propelling Aquino to the presidency.
Cruz also said that the petitions opposing the enforcement of the cybercrime law should be a test case for Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, who was just recently appointed by Aquino, to prove her independence. However, he said that all justices must take a stand to defend some 30-million internet users in the country who stand to be affected by this law.
“We just want to be free in expressing our thoughts in the internet, ” he said. Benjamin B. Pulta and Pat C. Santos
No comments:
Post a Comment