PIFA Files 15th Petition vs. Cyber Martial Law

The Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance (PIFA) – a broad alliance of organizations and netizens – has filed before the Supreme Court on Monday (October 8, 2012), just a few minutes before the end of office hours, the fifteenth petition against the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, Republic Act 10175. More »

PH Internet Freedom Alliance to protest Cybercrime Law at SC

MANILA, Philippines – Big brother is watching, but the Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance (PIFA) is fighting back.c. More »

General Assembly backs right to privacy in digital age

19 December 2013 – Deeply concerned that electronic surveillance, interception of digital communications and collection of personal data may negatively impact human rights, the United Nations General Assembly has adopted a consensus resolution strongly backing the right to privacy, calling on all countries take measures to end activities that violate this fundamental “tenet of a democratic society.” More »


PIFA to SC: “You missed your opportunity to champion Internet Freedom”

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the majority of the provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175) despite the petition of the Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance (PIFA) to junk the law for being contrary to the democratic values and rights of the sovereign Filipino people.
PIFA expresses regret for the Supreme Court for having missed the chance to become champions of internet freedom. Although reserving the right to allow the high court to reconsider RA 10175 as Cyber Martial Law, PIFA must now shift its advocacy to the arena of Congress to get legislators to repeal RA10175.

PIFA is flabbergasted at the retention of the cyberlibel provision . This repressive encroachment on the freedom of expression propagates a chilling effect across cyberspace, muting or outright silencing dissent and discourse on public matters. Foisting the threat of prison sentences for cyberlibel – increased from four years to ten years imprisonment – is contrary to the global trend to decriminalize libel.

In 2012, President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III even told the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines (FOCAP) that he was considering the global trend to decriminalize libel. During the oral arguments, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio pointed out that no less than the United Nations Human Rights Committee has called the attention of the Philippine government to amend its laws to remove libel from its criminal statutes.
Even after the High Court’s ruling last Tuesday, Justice Assistant Secretary Geronimo Sy of the Cybercrime Office affirmed that the cyberlibel provision is an unwanted burden on government authorities because such was never considered to be a cybercrime at all under the Budapest Convention. It must be recalled that in the House of Representatives, a cyberdefamation provision was deliberately deleted; but unfortunately in the Senate, the cyberlibel provision was rudely inserted and somehow became part of RA10175.

PIFA is dismayed that the cybersex provision was also retained in RA1017. It will be recalled during the oral arguments, Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta pointed out that contrary to Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza’s claim that what the cybersex provision meant to prohibit was “cyber pornography”, nowhere at all is the term “cyber pornography” found in the law. This is crucial because even the intimate private acts of consenting couples would be prosecuted as public crimes.

In instances where at least one of the parties does not consent to the sexual act imposed on them by force or deceit, the cybersex provision would penalize the victim together with the perpetrator – failing to distinguish one from the other. This would dilute if not obliterate the substantial progressive strides made under the Anti-Human Trafficking Law the Anti-Child Pornography Law, and the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Law in protecting the rights of sex crime victims.

PIFA is just waiting for the copy of the official Supreme Court decision to firm up its arguments and file for a motion for reconsideration. We believe that even though the 12 justice majority won’t probably be swayed to correct the ruling, the legal arguments why the majority opinion is wrong must be shown to the public and be recorded for posterity, in hopes that the high court in some future date will realize how wrong it was to uphold Cyber Martial Law.

When the Supreme Court during the Marcos Regime tied its own hands to allow “no legal impediment” to the march of Martial Law rule, the drafters of the 1987 Constitution imposed on the high court the duty to strike down any government act committed in excess of lawful jurisdiction. That duty includes declaring as void and unconstitutional laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the Chief Executive that are, however, in violation of human rights as recognized by international treaties and customary law.

PIFA reiterates that human rights offline – the freedom of expression and the right to privacy among them – are the same as human rights online, and the State is duty-bound to recognize, defend and promote these rights held by individual citizens in cyberspace.

PIFA reiterates that the infirmities of RA10175 cannot be cured by the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) that are currently being drawn up by the Executive branch. In other words, the Department of Justice cannot “correct” or “remedy” a bad law by means of IRR. Bearing this in mind, PIFA will still engage the DOJ which has called for the public’s participation in the drafting of the IRR of RA10175. PIFA will attend to point out to government officials and put on record the repressive nature of Cyber Martial Law, while maintaining steadfast the continuing principled objection to an unjust law is a moral obligation of the sovereign people.

No to cyber martial law! Never again will the Filipino people let their own government rule with impunity.

7 Responses to PIFA to SC: “You missed your opportunity to champion Internet Freedom”

  1. Emil says:

    Thank you PIFA for your resolve to guard the Filipino people from this repressive law. Your article above well pointed out 2 of the most contentious provisions of this law. I think not many people are aware of the section regarding cybersex, in this case. Go on, fight for the people. Be the guardian of our internet freedom. The people supports you, including this one.

  2. charlito says:

    mga sira ulo!

    ayaw nyu lang ng kaayusa sa buhay! mga walang kwentang PIFA.
    ayaw masilip ang mga kalokohan lalo na yung mga sindikato at politiko na my gawa ng grupo na to. SSTTUUUPPPIIIDD!!!!!!!!!

  3. Ramona says:

    I see a lot of interesting content on your page.

    You have to spend a lot of time writing, i know how to save
    you a lot of time, there is a tool that creates unique, SEO
    friendly posts in couple of minutes, just search in google – k2 unlimited content

  4. Jeremiah says:

    I see you share interesting stuff here, you can earn some extra cash, your blog has
    big potential, for the monetizing method, just type in google – K2 advices how to monetize a

  5. Dexter says:

    I read a lot of interesting articles here. Probably you spend a lot of time writing, i know how to
    save you a lot of time, there is an online tool that
    creates readable, SEO friendly articles in seconds, just search in google – laranitas free content

  6. Dewitt says:

    Webmaster do you want unlimited content for
    your wp blog? Type in google:
    stottai’s rewriter

  7. Mon says:

    I am a government employee, and I actually organize meetings concerning government programs, IRRs and policy initiatives for climate change and also cyber privacy and stuff.

    The reason why PIFA and other similar organizations are not invited on such meetings that seek representation from various sectors is that employees like me who are organizing such meetings are scared that inviting you guys might caused some problems in our initiatives and even during the meeting itself. You guys are too radical that we question whether we can even create an open discussion with you guys. We are also scared that the discussion might turn into a fault finding mission against the government.

    I was brave enough to invite a couple of leftist organization for one particular program on climate change. The whole time they remained silent. Then on the feedback/evaluation form, they wrote a 500 word essay how the feedback form was sexist and gender biased, how the meeting could have been done in a more cheaper venue (the meeting was in fact hinged to a bigger event so it was cheaper for us to hold it in that venue), and how intimidating the way the meeting was facilitated. Although she gave on particularly good point that could have changed the whole plan/program. But because she did not mention this verbally, I felt like she wasted the opportunity to actually represent the sector that she was representing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

phentermine 37.5 buy online online pharmacy viagra buy ambien online fast shipping valium for sale online