Monday, October 08, 2012

Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro


 


In the Name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful



FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT ON THE BANGSAMORO


The Philippine Government (GPH) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) herein referred to as the Parties to this Agreement,

HAVE AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED AS FOLLOWS:

I. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BANGSAMORO

1. The Parties agree that the status quo is unacceptable and that the Bangsamoro shall be established to replace the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). The Bangsamoro is the new autonomous political entity (NPE) referred to in the Decision Points of Principles as of April 2012.

2. The government of the Bangsamoro shall have a ministerial form.

The Parties agree to entrench an electoral system suitable to a ministerial form of government. The electoral system shall allow democratic participation, ensure accountability of public officers primarily to their constituents and encourage formation of genuinely principled political parties. The electoral system shall be contained in the Bangsamoro Basic Law to be implemented through legislation enacted by the Bangsamoro Government and correlated with national laws.

3. The provinces, cities, municipalities, barangays and geographic areas within its territory shall be the constituent units of the Bangsamoro.

The authority to regulate on its own responsibility the affairs of the constituent units is guaranteed within the limit of the Bangsamoro Basic Law. The privileges already enjoyed by the local government units under existing laws shall not be diminished unless otherwise altered, modified or reformed for good governance pursuant to the provisions of the Bangsamoro local government code.

4. The relationship of the Central Government with the Bangsamoro Government shall be asymmetric.

5. The Parties recognize Bangsamoro identity. Those who at the time of conquest and colonization were considered natives or original inhabitants of Mindanao and the Sulu archipelago and its adjacent islands including Palawan, and their descendants whether of mixed or of full blood shall have the right to identify themselves as Bangsamoro by ascription or self-ascription.

Spouses and their descendants are classified as Bangsamoro. The freedom of choice of other Indigenous peoples shall be respected.

II. BASIC LAW

1. The Bangsamoro shall be governed by a Basic Law.

2. The provisions of the Bangsamoro Basic Law shall be consistent with all agreements of the Parties.

3. The Basic Law shall reflect the Bangsamoro system of life and meet internationally accepted standards of governance.

4. It shall be formulated by the Bangsamoro people and ratified by the qualified voters within its territory.

III. POWERS

1. The Central Government will have reserved powers, the Bangsamoro Government shall have its exclusive powers, and there will be concurrent powers shared by the Central Government and the Bangsamoro Government.

The Annex on Power Sharing, which includes the principles on intergovernmental relations, shall form part of this Agreement and guide the drafting of the Basic Law.

2. The Central Government shall have powers on:

a) Defense and external security

b) Foreign policy

c) Common market and global trade, provided that the power to enter into economic agreements already allowed under Republic Act No. 9054 shall be transferred to the Bangsamoro

d) Coinage and monetary policy

e) Citizenship and naturalization

f) Postal service

This list is without prejudice to additional powers that may be agreed upon by the Parties.

3. The Parties recognize the need to strengthen the Shari’ah courts and to expand their jurisdiction over cases. The Bangsamoro shall have competence over the Shari’ah justice system. The supremacy of Shari’ah and its application shall only be to Muslims.

4. The Bangsamoro Basic Law may provide for the power of the Bangsamoro Government to accredit halal-certifying bodies in the Bangsamoro.

5. The Bangsamoro Basic Law shall provide for justice institutions in the Bangsamoro. This includes:

a) The competence over the Shari’ah justice system, as well as the formal institutionalization and operation of its functions, and the expansion of the jurisdiction of the Shari’ah courts;

b) Measures to improve the workings of local civil courts, when necessary; and

c) Alternative dispute resolution systems.

6. The customary rights and traditions of indigenous peoples shall be taken into consideration in the formation of the Bangsamoro’s justice system. This may include the recognition of indigenous processes as alternative modes of dispute resolution.

IV. REVENUE GENERATION AND WEALTH SHARING

1. The parties agree that wealth creation (or revenue generation and sourcing) is important for the operation of the Bangsamoro.

2. Consistent with the Bangsamoro Basic Law, the Bangsamoro will have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees, and charges, subject to limitations as may be mutually agreed upon by the Parties. This power shall include the power to determine tax bases and tax rates, guided by the principles of devolution of power, equalization, equity, accountability, administrative simplicity, harmonization, economic efficiency, and fiscal autonomy.

3. The Bangsamoro will have the authority to receive grants and donations from domestic and foreign sources, and block grants and subsidies from the Central Government. Subject to acceptable credit worthiness, it shall also have the authority to contract loans from domestic and foreign lending institutions, except foreign and domestic loans requiring sovereign guaranty, whether explicit or implicit, which would require the approval of the Central Government.

4. The Bangsamoro shall have a just and equitable share in the revenues generated through the exploration, development or utilization of natural resources obtaining in all the areas/territories, land or water, covered by and within the jurisdiction of the Bangsamoro, in accordance with the formula agreed upon by the Parties.

5. The Bangsamoro may create its own auditing body and procedures for accountability over revenues and other funds generated within or by the region from external sources.
This shall be without prejudice to the power, authority and duty of the national Commission on Audit to examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenues and the use of funds and property owned and held in trust by any government instrumentality, including GOCCs.

6. The details of revenue and wealth sharing arrangements between the Central Government and the Bangsamoro Government shall be agreed upon by the Parties. The Annex on Wealth Sharing shall form part of this Agreement.

7. There shall be an intergovernmental fiscal policy board composed of representatives of the Bangsamoro and the Central Government in order to address revenue imbalances and fluctuations in regional financial needs and revenue-raising capacity. The Board shall meet at least once in six (6) months to determine necessary fiscal policy adjustments, subject to the principles of intergovernmental relations mutually agreed upon by both Parties. Once full fiscal autonomy has been achieved by the Bangsamoro then it may no longer be necessary to have a representative from the Central Government to sit in the Board. Fiscal autonomy shall mean generation and budgeting of the Bangsamoro’s own sources of revenue, its share of the internal revenue taxes and block grants and subsidies remitted to it by the central government or any donor.

8. The Parties agree that sustainable development is crucial in protecting and improving the quality of life of the Bangsamoro people. To this end, the Bangsamoro shall develop a comprehensive framework for sustainable development through the proper conservation, utilization and development of natural resources. For efficient coordination and assistance, the Bangsamoro legislative body shall create, by law, an intergovernmental body composed of representatives of the Bangsamoro and the Central Government, which shall ensure the harmonization of environmental and developmental plans, as well as formulate common environmental objectives.

V. TERRITORY

1. The core territory of the Bangsamoro shall be composed of: (a) the present geographical area of the ARMM; (b) the Municipalities of Baloi, Munai, Nunungan, Pantar, Tagoloan and Tangkal in the province of Lanao del Norte and all other barangays in the Municipalities of Kabacan, Carmen, Aleosan, Pigkawayan, Pikit, and Midsayap that voted for inclusion in the ARMM during the 2001 plebiscite; (c) the cities of Cotabato and Isabela; and (d) all other contiguous areas where there is a resolution of the local government unit or a petition of at least ten percent (10%) of the qualified voters in the area asking for their inclusion at least two months prior to the conduct of the ratification of the Bangsamoro Basic Law and the process of delimitation of the Bangsamoro as mentioned in the next paragraph.

2. The Parties shall work together in order to ensure the widest acceptability of the Bangsamoro Basic Law as drafted by the Transitory Commission and the core areas mentioned in the previous paragraph, through a process of popular ratification among all the Bangsamoro within the areas for their adoption. An international third party monitoring team shall be present to ensure that the process is free, fair, credible, legitimate and in conformity with international standards.

3. Areas which are contiguous and outside the core territory where there are substantial populations of the Bangsamoro may opt anytime to be part of the territory upon petition of at least ten percent (10%) of the residents and approved by a majority of qualified voters in a plebiscite.

4. The disposition of internal and territorial waters shall be referred to in the Annexes on Wealth and Power Sharing.

5. Territory refers to the land mass as well as the maritime, terrestrial, fluvial and alluvial domains, and the aerial domain and the atmospheric space above it. Governance shall be as agreed upon by the parties in this agreement and in the sections on wealth and power sharing.

6. The Bangsamoro Basic Law shall recognize the collective democratic rights of the constituents in the Bangsamoro.

VI. BASIC RIGHTS

1. In addition to basic rights already enjoyed, the following rights of all citizens residing in the Bangsamoro bind the legislature, executive and judiciary as directly enforceable law and are guaranteed:

a. Right to life and to inviolability of one’s person and dignity;

b. Right to freedom and expression of religion and beliefs;

c. Right to privacy;

d. Right to freedom of speech;

e. Right to express political opinion and pursue democratically political aspiration;

f. Right to seek constitutional change by peaceful and legitimate means;

g. Right of women to meaningful political participation, and protection from all forms of violence;

h. Right to freely choose one’s place of residence and the inviolability of the home;

i. Right to equal opportunity and non-discrimination in social and economic activity and the public service, regardless of class, creed, disability, gender and ethnicity;

j. Right to establish cultural and religious associations;

k. Right to freedom from religious, ethnic and sectarian harassment; and

l. Right to redress of grievances and due process of law.

2. Vested property rights shall be recognized and respected. With respect to the legitimate grievances of the Bangsamoro people arising from any unjust dispossession of their territorial and proprietary rights, customary land tenure or their marginalization shall be acknowledged. Whenever restoration is no longer possible, the Central Government and the Government of the Bangsamoro shall take effective measures for adequate reparation collectively beneficial to the Bangsamoro people in such quality, quantity and status to be determined mutually.

3. Indigenous peoples’ rights shall be respected.

4. The Central Government shall ensure the protection of the rights of the Bangsamoro people residing outside the territory of the Bangsamoro and undertake programs for the rehabilitation and development of their communities. The Bangsamoro Government may provide assistance to their communities to enhance their economic, social and cultural development.

VII. TRANSITION AND IMPLEMENTATION

1. The Parties agree to the need for a transition period and the institution of transitional mechanisms.

2. The Parties agree to adopt and incorporate an Annex on Transitional Arrangements and Modalities, which forms a part of this Framework Agreement.

3. There shall be created a Transition Commission through an Executive Order and supported by Congressional Resolutions.

4. The functions of the Transition Commission are as follows:

a. To work on the drafting of the Bangsamoro Basic Law with provisions consistent with all agreements entered and that may be entered into by the Parties;

b. To work on proposals to amend the Philippine Constitution for the purpose of accommodating and entrenching in the constitution the agreements of the Parties whenever necessary without derogating from any prior peace agreements;

c. To coordinate whenever necessary development programs in Bangsamoro communities in conjunction with the MILF Bangsamoro Development Agency (BDA), the Bangsamoro Leadership and Management Institute (BLMI) and other agencies.

5. The Transition Commission shall be composed of fifteen (15) members all of whom are Bangsamoro. Seven (7) members shall be selected by the GPH and eight (8) members, including the Chairman, shall be selected by the MILF.

6. The Transition Commission will be independent from the ARMM and other government agencies. The GPH shall allocate funds and provide other resources for its effective operation. All other agencies of government shall support the Transition Commission in the performance of its tasks and responsibilities until it becomes functus oficio and cease to exist.

7. The draft Bangsamoro Basic Law submitted by the Transition Commission shall be certified as an urgent bill by the President.

8. Upon promulgation and ratification of the Basic Law, which provides for the creation of the Bangsamoro Transition Authority (BTA), the ARMM is deemed abolished.

9. All devolved authorities shall be vested in the Bangsamoro Transition Authority during the interim period. The ministerial form and Cabinet system of government shall commence once the Bangsamoro Transition Authority is in place. The Bangsamoro Transition Authority may reorganize the bureaucracy into institutions of governance appropriate thereto.

10. The Bangsamoro Transition Authority shall ensure that the continued functioning of government in the area of autonomy is exercised pursuant to its mandate under the Basic Law. The Bangsamoro Transition Authority will be immediately replaced in 2016 upon the election and assumption of the members of the Bangsamoro legislative assembly and the formation of the Bangsamoro government.

11. There will be created a third party monitoring team to be composed of international bodies, as well as domestic groups to monitor the implementation of all agreements.

12. At the end of the transition period, the GPH and MILF Peace Negotiating Panels, together with the Malaysian Facilitator and the Third Party Monitoring Team, shall convene a meeting to review, assess or evaluate the implementation of all agreements and the progress of the transition. An ‘Exit Document’ officially terminating the peace negotiation may be crafted and signed by both Parties if and only when all agreements have been fully implemented.

13. The Negotiating Panel of both Parties shall continue the negotiations until all issues are resolved and all agreements implemented.

VIII. NORMALIZATION

1. The Parties agree that normalization is vital to the peace process. It is through normalization that communities can return to conditions where they can achieve their desired quality of life, which includes the pursuit of sustainable livelihoods and political participation within a peaceful deliberative society.

2. The aim of normalization is to ensure human security in the Bangsamoro. Normalization helps build a society that is committed to basic human rights, where individuals are free from fear of violence or crime and where long-held traditions and value continue to be honored. Human insecurity embraces a wide range of issues that would include violation of human and civil rights, social and political injustice and impunity.

3. As a matter of principle, it is essential that policing structure and arrangement are such that the police service is professional and free from partisan political control. The police system shall be civilian in character so that it is effective and efficient in law enforcement, fair and impartial as well as accountable under the law for its action, and responsible both to the Central Government and the Bangsamoro Government, and to the communities it serves.

4. An independent commission shall be organized by the Parties to recommend appropriate policing within the area. The commission shall be composed of representatives from the parties and may invite local and international experts on law enforcement to assist the commission in its work.

5. The MILF shall undertake a graduated program for decommissioning of its forces so that they are put beyond use.

6. In a phased and gradual manner, all law enforcement functions shall be transferred from the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to the police force for the Bangsamoro.
The Parties agree to continue negotiations on the form, functions and relationship of the police force of the Bangsamoro taking into consideration the results of the independent review process mentioned in paragraph 4.

7. The Joint Coordinating Committees on Cessation of Hostilities (JCCCH) as well as the Ad hoc Joint Action Group (AHJAG) with the participation of the International Monitoring Team (IMT) shall continue to monitor the ceasefire agreement until the full decommissioning of the MILF forces. These existing coordinating mechanisms shall be the basis for the creation of a Joint Normalization Committee (JNC) to ensure the coordination between the Government and remaining MILF forces, and through which MILF shall assist in maintaining peace and order in the area of the Bangsamoro until decommissioning shall have been fully completed.

8. Both Parties commit to work in partnership for the reduction and control of firearms in the area and the disbandment of private armies and other armed groups.

9. The details of the normalization process and timetables for decommissioning shall be in an Annex on Normalization and shall form part of this Agreement.

10. The Parties agree to intensify development efforts for rehabilitation, reconstruction and development of the Bangsamoro, and institute programs to address the needs of MILF combatants, internally displaced persons, and poverty-stricken communities.

11. The Parties recognize the need to attract multi-donor country support, assistance and pledges to the normalization process. For this purpose, a Trust Fund shall be established through which urgent support, recurrent and investment budget cost will be released with efficiency, transparency and accountability. The Parties agree to adopt criteria for eligible financing schemes, such as, priority areas of capacity building, institutional strengthening, impact programs to address imbalances in development and infrastructures, and economic facilitation for return to normal life affecting combatant and non-combatant elements of the MILF, indigenous peoples, women, children, and internally displaced persons.

12. The Parties agree to work out a program for transitional justice to address the legitimate grievances of the Bangsamoro people, correct historical injustices, and address human rights violations.

IX. MISCELLANEOUS

1. This Agreement shall not be implemented unilaterally.

2. The Parties commit to work further on the details of the Framework Agreement in the context of this document and complete a comprehensive agreement by the end of the year.





20121007 GPH MILF Framework Agreement



Source - http://www.gov.ph/2012/10/07/the-2012-framework-agreement-on-the-bangsamoro/

Thursday, October 04, 2012

Bloggers and netizens file TRO for Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012


                                    (from https://twitter.com/HecklerForever/status/253744899248246784/photo/1)

PEBA joined bloggers through Pete Rahon in filing another petition at the Supreme court against the CYBERCRIME LAW.

ANOTHER GROUP OF BLOGGERS LED BY TONYO CRUZ FILED A PETITION AGAINST THE CYBERCRIME LAW. HERE IS THEIR STATEMENT.

A day after the Cybercrime Law took effect, 18 netizens mostly bloggers filed their own petition at the Supreme Court seeking to nullify the controversial new law signed by President Aquino.
And they instantly served the President a copy of their petition via the internet.

They tweeted:
@noynoyaquino We are suing you and your #cybercrimelaw. You’ve been served.
@noynoyaquino Mr. President, see you in court. We've sued

They also posted copies of the petition on President Aquino’s Facebook Page and emailed the Office of the President.

In their 74-page pleading, the petitioners said that:
Inasmuch as [we] are concerned by the new law’s many violations of [our] fundamental and constitutional rights as individuals, [we] toll the bells now over the clear and present dangers Republic Act No. 10175 pose on the internet as a platform for close to one-third of the population. The internet is where [we] could discuss issues and concerns, respond during disasters and crises, demand improvements in various aspects of national life and, most importantly, to speak truth to power.

They also said that the new law “involves spying on citizens, seizure without probable cause, prior restraint, subsequent punishment, and other acts prohibited under the Constitution.”

The petition said that the law’s provisions – specifically Sections 4(c)(4), 5, 6, 7, 12 and 19 –
violate fundamental and constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, free speech, privacy of correspondence and communication, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against double jeopardy.

The bloggers and netizens called on the court to perform its “most noble and awesome duty to uphold the Constitution and protect the liberties of citizens” by exercising judicial review and put both the Executive and Legislative in their proper places.

Leading the petitioners were Tonyo Cruz (tonyocruz.com), Marcelo Landicho (The Professional Heckler), Benj Espina (atheista.net) and Marck Rimorin (The Marocharim Experiment) who are all previous winners of the Philippine Blog Awards; and fellow bloggers Jhay Rocas (The Four-Eyed Journal), Aaron Lozada (Pinoygossipboy.ph), Bren Ramirez (Brendarna), Ade Magnaye (Noisy Noisy Man), Tin Rementilla (tinrementilla.com), Blogwatch.ph contributor Maui Hermitanio, Davao City-based Blogie Robillo (robilloblog.com) and Boracay-based online professional and blogger Reggie Ramos (dronthego.net); and

Social media strategist Ros Juan, award-winning art director Jules Cabigon, IT business development executive Maricel Gray, and student leader Benralph Yu of the University of the Philippines Manila; and
Cebu Bloggers Society Inc., the country’s first bloggers association, and the Pinoy Expat/OFW Blog Awards also joined the petition through CBSI president Ruben Licera Jr. and PEBA Manila-Luzon coordinator Pete Rahon.

Serving as counsel is lawyer Toby Purisima, himself a social media user.

Reference:

Tonyo Cruz, 0917-8669646, 02-5771479
Atty. Toby Purisima, 0917-8965843, 02-5035272

SUMMARY

ANTHONY IAN M. CRUZ et al v. HIS EXCELLENCY BENIGNO S. AQUINO III et al
Certiorari & Prohibition [With Application for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction]
Supreme Court, Manila
Filed on 04 October 2012


BACKGROUND

Bloggers and netizens – citizens who have and who actively use their internet access – raise the alarm over a newly-signed and newly-enacted law violating their individual and collective rights, and destroys the idea and reality of the Internet as an open public forum and marketplace of ideas.

Inasmuch as they are concerned by the new law’s many violations of their fundamental and constitutional rights as individuals, they toll the bells now over the clear and present dangers Republic Act No. 10175, otherwise known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (“Cybercrime Prevention Act”), pose on the internet as a platform for close to one-third of the population. The internet is where they could discuss issues and concerns, respond during disasters and crises, demand improvements in various aspects of national life and, most importantly, to speak truth to power.

Before, citizens solely depended on newspapers, periodicals, radio, and televisions to exercise their fundamental and constitutional rights to free expression, to redress of grievances and even to assembly and association. Today, the internet and even mobile phones have become the platform and mediums of citizens themselves from which they exercise their rights.

In fact, Filipinos have excelled in internet use and earned for the Philippines the new monicker “social media capital of the world”.

To the complete shock of citizens, the Government adopted a new law that involves spying on citizens, seizure without probable cause, prior restraint, subsequent punishment, and other acts prohibited under the Constitution.

Thus, in light of this grave context, conferred upon the Judiciary is the ponderous duty to rein in the Legislative and Executive Branches of Government to their own allocated places under the Constitution. As the final arbiter of all legal controversies and the last bulwark of democracy in this jurisdiction, the Supreme Court is tasked with the most noble and awesome duty to uphold the Constitution and protect the liberties of citizens.

The Honorable Court is petitioners’ only ally in upholding their inalienable civil rights under the Constitution, most especially the following indisputable entitlements under the Bill of Rights:

•    RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW & EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW

“Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”

•    RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES & SEIZURES

“Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”

•    RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION & CORRESPONDENCE

“Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.”

•    RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

“Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”

•    RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY

“Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.”

Now more than ever, therefore, with all due respect, the power of judicial review must not be abrogated or abandoned by the Honorable Court. Otherwise, the other branches of Government will be able to operate as they very well please even beyond their fences, to the detriment of citizens.

It is precisely for this reason that petitioners assail the constitutionality and legality of the following Assailed Provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act:

(1)     SECTION 4(c)(4) separately criminalizing acts of libel, as defined under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, that are committed through a computer system or any other similar means that may be devised in the future (“Cyber Libel”);

(2)     SECTION 5 criminalizing acts that aid or abet the commission of any offense punishable under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, as well as the attempt to commit the same, including Section 4(c)(4) on Cyber Libel;

(3)     SECTION 6 imposing a higher penalty for the commission of any offense punishable under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, i.e., one (1) degree higher than that provided under the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws;

(4)    SECTION 7 providing that a prosecution under the Cybercrime Prevention Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws;

(5)    SECTION 12 authorizing any and all law enforcement authorities, with due cause, to collect and/or record by technical or electronic means traffic data in real-time without prior judicial warrant, sanction and/or approval; and

(6)    SECTION 19 authorizing the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to restrict and/or block access to computer data that are prima facie found to be violative of the provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

(7)    The other provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act that flow from the above Assailed Provisions are likewise assailed by the instant Petition, including the provisions that authorize the disbursement of public funds for the implementation of the law.

    In view of the constitutional and legal infirmity of the Assailed Provisions, petitioners hereby invoke the Honorable Court’s power of judicial review and comes now before the Honorable Court with an earnest plea to correct a grave and serious injustice and transgression of the Constitution that impinge upon petitioners’ most cherished and jealously guarded fundamental civil rights, which include, as previously mentioned, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 21, Article III of the Constitution.

As it stands, the Cybercrime Prevention Act is a quantum leap backwards that destroys the very fabric of the free exchange of ideas that has allowed democracy to thrive in this country. Moreover, the Cybercrime Prevention Act is contrary to the commitment to transparency that the present dispensation has supposedly championed.

It is likewise unfortunate to note that the Legislative and Executive Branches of Government chose to prioritize the passage of an over-reaching law that curtails citizens’ rights and effectively shepherds the nation to the Cyber Dark Ages, as opposed to enacting laws that promote transparency and good governance, such as the Freedom of Information Bill.

Further, a great number of our Overseas Filipino Workers (“OFWs”), who are heralded as modern-day heroes, certainly look forward to and expect the benefits of their constitutionally-guaranteed right to free speech, which they most probably do not enjoy as much, if at all, in the countries where they are deployed. They will be much affected by the draconian statute.

Moreover, Cybercrime Prevention Act is a direct assault to the time-honored principle of each citizen’s right to privacy, which is the inalienable right of an individual to be let alone.

The right to be let alone is a fundamental right that extends to the information platforms and media offered by technology. A simple post or shout-out through a Twitter account or Facebook page may, to some, be undeserving of legal protection. However, such seemingly simple and mundane acts of sharing opinions and perspectives on various subject matters may well be considered as the natural consequence of the evolving concept of the right to privacy, the right to be let alone. More so, it should be underscored that a person does not waive, shed or otherwise give up his right to privacy simply because he or she used a different medium of communication, such as the internet.

It is unfortunate, even alarming, to note that although the Legislature had all the opportunity to craft a law that is, and should be, responsive to the evolving times, it instead produced a Panopticon that will not hesitate to strike down any and all online acts and utterances that are deemed undesirable and unacceptable according to the fleeting and subjective standards of law enforcement authorities, without the benefit of any judicial oversight or sanction. Given these grave circumstances, the President had the corresponding opportunity, even the duty, to veto the all-embracing law on behalf of millions of freedom-loving citizens yet he did not see it fit to protect, preserve and advance the rights of his constituents in the face of a mammoth legislation.

As a result, a regime of round-the-clock surveillance – a constant axe hanging overhead, read to strike – effectively chills and silences legitimate action, thought, free discussion, and dissent. Indeed, as consistently held by the Honorable Court, in the realm of the political life of a nation, debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.

When, as in this case, the Legislative and Executive Branches of Government act in complete defiance of the clear letter and spirit of the Constitution, it is the sacred duty of the Honorable Court to uphold the fundamental law and, consequently, strike down the Assailed Provisions in order to affirm the most cherished and jealously guarded fundamental rights of citizens under the aegis of a democracy that was painfully fought for by great forebears who stand to be dishonored and disgraced by the implementation of legislation that is unprecedented in the manner by which it seeks to curtail the rights of the very citizens that are the beneficiaries of freedom fought and won – until now.

Otherwise, fear would be abundant as fundamental freedoms fall by the wayside.

Thus, petitioners file the Petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for Certiorari and Prohibition seeking to nullify and enjoin the implementation of the Assailed Provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Law.

THE PARTIES

Petitioners are directly and adversely affected by the implementation of the Assailed Provisions and are suing in their capacities as citizens and taxpayers of the Republic of the Philippines

1.    PETITIONER ANTHONY IAN M. CRUZ is an active social media user, owner of the tech and political blog tonyocruz.com and the Twitter account @tonyocruz, president of consumer and netizen group TXTPower.org, Inc., and a social media strategist by profession. He is a previous winner in the Philippine Blog Awards.

2.    PETITIONER MARCELO R. LANDICHO is an active social media user and owner of the political humor site The Professional Heckler and the Twitter account @HecklerForever. His blog has won repeatedly in the Philippine Blog Awards.

3.    PETITIONER BENJAMIN NOEL A. ESPINA is an active social media user, owner of Atheista.net and the Twitter account @atheista, and a social media analytics director by profession. He is a previous winner in the Philippine Blog Awards.

4.    PETITIONER MARCK RONALD C. RIMORIN is an active social media user, owner of the blog Marocharim Experiment and the Twitter account @marocharim, and a social media intelligence director by profession. He is a previous winner in the Philippine Blog Awards.

5.    PETITIONER JULIUS D. ROCAS is an active social media user, owner of blog The Four Eyed Journal and the Twitter account @jhayrocas, and an online publisher by profession.

6.     PETITIONER OLIVER RICHARD V. ROBILLO is an active social media user, owner of several blogs and the Twitter account @blogie, and a social media consultant by profession. He is one of the founders of the Mindanao Bloggers Community.

7.    PETITIONER AARON ERICK A. LOZADA is an active social media user, owner of the blog PinoyGossipboy.ph and Twitter account @pinoygossipboy, and a student of the College of Law of the University of the Philippines.

8.    PETITIONER GERARD ADRIAN P. MAGNAYE is an active social media user, owner of the blog Noisy Noisy Man and the Twitter account @ademagnaye, and a social media officer by profession.

9.    PETITIONER JOSE REGINALD A. RAMOS is an active social media user, owner of the blog dronthego.net and the Twitter account @dronthego, contributor to the tech blog Technoodling and a freelance internet contractor by profession.

10.    PETITIONER MA. ROSARIO T. JUAN is an active social media user, convenor of Twitter meetup organizing group TweetUpMNL, owner of Twitter account @juanxi and an entrepreneur and a social media strategist by profession.

11.    PETITIONER BRENDALYN P. RAMIREZ is an active social media user, owner of the blog Brendarna and the Twitter account @BryRamirez and a digital accounts manager by profession.

12.    PETITIONER MAUREEN A. HERMITANIO is an active social media user, owner of the Twitter account @mobilemaui, a contributor to the Philippine Online Chronicles and BlogWatch.ph, and a government employee.

13.    PETITIONER KRISTINE JOY S. REMENTILLA is an active social media user, owner of the blog www.tinrementilla.com and the Twitter account @tin_rementilla, and a social media manager by profession.   

14.    PETITIONER MARICEL O. GRAY is an active social media user, a developer belonging to the Google Developers Community, owner of the Twitter account @cellofoodiegeek and an IT business development executive by profession.

15.    PETITIONER JULIUS IVAN F. CABIGON is an award-winning advertising professional, digital marketing practitioner, and active social media user – heavily reliant on the internet for his craft.

16.    PETITIONER BENRALPH S. YU is an active social media user, owner of the Twitter account @wherehaveyouben, and a multi-awarded student, leader and scholar at the University of the Philippines, Manila.

17.    PETITIONER RUBEN B. LICERA JR. is president of CEBU BLOGGERS SOCIETY INC. (“CBSI”), the country's first bloggers association registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, an active social media user, owner of several blogs and of the Twitter account @rubenlicera and an online marketing specialist by profession.

18.    PETITIONER PEDRO E. RAHON is the Manila-Luzon coordinator of the PINOY EXPAT/OFW BLOG AWARDS INC. (“PEBA”), an active social media user, owner of the blog "Pinoy Chocophile", and a migrant worker advocate by profession.

The respondents are as follows: RESPONDENT HON. BENIGNO S. AQUINO III, President of the Republic of the Philippines; RESPONDENT SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile; RESPONDENT HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, represented by Speaker Feliciano R. Belmonte, Jr.; RESPONDENT PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., the Executive Secretary; RESPONDENT LEILA M. DE LIMA, the Secretary of Justice; RESPONDENT LOUIS NAPOLEON C. CASAMBRE, Executive Director of the Information and Communications Technology Office under the Department of Science and Technology; and RESPONDENT NONNATUS CAESAR R. ROJAS, Director of the National Bureau of Investigation; RESPONDENT NICANOR A. BARTOLOME, Chief of the Philippine National Police.


ARGUMENTS

I
Section 12 Of The Cybercrime Prevention Act Is Patently Unconstitutional Considering That It Violates An Individual’s Right To Privacy And The Privacy Of Communication And Correspondence:
   
A.    An Individual Has A Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy Of Personal Electronic Data, As Well As Communication And Correspondence.

B.    Section 12 Of The Cybercrime Prevention Act Constitutes An Unreasonable Government Intrusion As It Lacks Safeguards Against Possible Abuses By Possessors Of Acquired Data.

C.    Section 12 Of The Cybercrime Prevention Act Constitutes An Unreasonable Government Intrusion As It Renders Existing Safeguards Against Invasion Of Privacy, As Well As Communications And Correspondence, Nugatory.

II
Section 12 Of The Cybercrime Prevention Act Is Patently Unconstitutional Considering That It Violates An Individual’s Right To Unreasonable Searches And Seizures.

III
Section 19 Of The Cybercrime Prevention Act Is Null And Void For Being Unconstitutional Considering That:

A.    Section 19 Of The Cybercrime Prevention Act Is Violative Of The Due Process Clause Under Section 1, Article III Of The Constitution, For Failing To Provide Any Procedural Safeguards In Its Implementation And/Or Enforcement.

B.    Section 19 Of The Cybercrime Prevention Act Is Violative Of The Right Of Citizens Against Unreasonable Searches And Seizures, As Provided Under Section 2, Article III Of The Constitution.

C.    Section 19 Of The Cybercrime Prevention Act Is Violative Of The Right Of The People To Freedom Of Speech, As Provided Under Section 4, Article III Of The Constitution.


IV
Sections 4(C)(4), 5, 6, And 7 Of The Cybercrime Prevention Act Are Null And Void For Being Unconstitutional Considering That Said Provisions Are Violative Of The Due Process Clause Under Section 1, Article III Of The Constitution And Of The Free Speech Clause Under Section 4, Article III Of The Constitution.

V
Section 6 Of The Cybercrime Prevention Act Is Null And Void For Being Unconstitutional Considering That It Is Violative Of The Equal Protection Clause Under Section 1, Article III Of The Constitution.


Link of the complete text -
Cybercrime Law: Bloggers and Netizens Cruz et al vs Aquino et al

Updated 

Links of Related News:

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/276861/scitech/technology/bloggers-file-tenth-petition-vs-cybercrime-law

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/10/04/12/bloggers-netizens-file-10th-plea-vs-cybercrime-law

http://www.rappler.com/nation/13633-bloggers-file-petition-against-cybercrime-law

 http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/277026/scitech/technology/int-l-pressure-mounts-vs-cybercrime-law

http://technology.inquirer.net/18062/10th-petition-against-cyber-law-filed-with-sc 

Tuesday, October 02, 2012

Republic Act No. 10175 - Cybercrime Prevention Law



Republic of the Philippines
Congress of the Philippines
Metro Manila
Fifteenth Congress
Second Regular Session



Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday the Twenty-fifth day of July two thousand eleven.



[ Republic Act No. 10175 ]



AN ACT DEFINING CYBERCRIME, PROVIDING FOR THE PREVENTION, INVESTIGATION, SUPPRESSION AND THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES



Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:



CHAPTER I: PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS



SECTION 1. Title. — This Act shall be known as the “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012″.



SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. — The State recognizes the vital role of information and communications industries such as content production, telecommunications, broadcasting electronic commerce, and data processing, in the nation’s overall social and economic development. The State also recognizes the importance of providing an environment conducive to the development, acceleration, and rational application and exploitation of information and communications technology (ICT) to attain free, easy, and intelligible access to exchange and/or delivery of information; and the need to protect and safeguard the integrity of computer, computer and communications systems, networks, and databases, and the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information and data stored therein, from all forms of misuse, abuse, and illegal access by making punishable under the law such conduct or conducts. In this light, the State shall adopt sufficient powers to effectively prevent and combat such offenses by facilitating their detection, investigation, and prosecution at both the domestic and international levels, and by providing arrangements for fast and reliable international cooperation.



SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. — For purposes of this Act, the following terms are hereby defined as follows:



(a) Access refers to the instruction, communication with, storing data in, retrieving data from, or otherwise making use of any resources of a computer system or communication network.



(b) Alteration refers to the modification or change, in form or substance, of an existing computer data or program.



(c) Communication refers to the transmission of information through ICT media, including voice, video and other forms of data.



(d) Computer refers to an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other data processing or communications device, or grouping of such devices, capable of performing logical, arithmetic, routing, or storage functions and which includes any storage facility or equipment or communications facility or equipment directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device. It covers any type of computer device including devices with data processing capabilities like mobile phones, smart phones, computer networks and other devices connected to the internet.



(e) Computer data refers to any representation of facts, information, or concepts in a form suitable for processing in a computer system including a program suitable to cause a computer system to perform a function and includes electronic documents and/or electronic data messages whether stored in local computer systems or online.



(f) Computer program refers to a set of instructions executed by the computer to achieve intended results.



(g) Computer system refers to any device or group of interconnected or related devices, one or more of which, pursuant to a program, performs automated processing of data. It covers any type of device with data processing capabilities including, but not limited to, computers and mobile phones. The device consisting of hardware and software may include input, output and storage components which may stand alone or be connected in a network or other similar devices. It also includes computer data storage devices or media.



(h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law.



(i) Cyber refers to a computer or a computer network, the electronic medium in which online communication takes place.



(j) Critical infrastructure refers to the computer systems, and/or networks, whether physical or virtual, and/or the computer programs, computer data and/or traffic data so vital to this country that the incapacity or destruction of or interference with such system and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national or economic security, national public health and safety, or any combination of those matters.



(k) Cybersecurity refers to the collection of tools, policies, risk management approaches, actions, training, best practices, assurance and technologies that can be used to protect the cyber environment and organization and user’s assets.



(l) Database refers to a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts, or instructions which are being prepared, processed or stored or have been prepared, processed or stored in a formalized manner and which are intended for use in a computer system.



(m) Interception refers to listening to, recording, monitoring or surveillance of the content of communications, including procuring of the content of data, either directly, through access and use of a computer system or indirectly, through the use of electronic eavesdropping or tapping devices, at the same time that the communication is occurring.

(n) Service provider refers to:



(1) Any public or private entity that provides to users of its service the ability to communicate by means of a computer system; and



(2) Any other entity that processes or stores computer data on behalf of such communication service or users of such service.



(o) Subscriber’s information refers to any information contained in the form of computer data or any other form that is held by a service provider, relating to subscribers of its services other than traffic or content data and by which identity can be established:



(1) The type of communication service used, the technical provisions taken thereto and the period of service;



(2) The subscriber’s identity, postal or geographic address, telephone and other access numbers, any assigned network address, billing and payment information, available on the basis of the service agreement or arrangement; and



(3) Any other available information on the site of the installation of communication equipment, available on the basis of the service agreement or arrangement.



(p) Traffic data or non-content data refers to any computer data other than the content of the communication including, but not limited to, the communication’s origin, destination, route, time, date, size, duration, or type of underlying service.



CHAPTER II: PUNISHABLE ACTS



SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. — The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable under this Act:



(a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems:



(1) Illegal Access. – The access to the whole or any part of a computer system without right.



(2) Illegal Interception. – The interception made by technical means without right of any non-public transmission of computer data to, from, or within a computer system including electromagnetic emissions from a computer system carrying such computer data.



(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.



(4) System Interference. — The intentional alteration or reckless hindering or interference with the functioning of a computer or computer network by inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer data or program, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right or authority, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.



(5) Misuse of Devices.



(i) The use, production, sale, procurement, importation, distribution, or otherwise making available, without right, of:



(aa) A device, including a computer program, designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this Act; or



(bb) A computer password, access code, or similar data by which the whole or any part of a computer system is capable of being accessed with intent that it be used for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this Act.



(ii) The possession of an item referred to in paragraphs 5(i)(aa) or (bb) above with intent to use said devices for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this section.



(6) Cyber-squatting. – The acquisition of a domain name over the internet in bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy reputation, and deprive others from registering the same, if such a domain name is:



(i) Similar, identical, or confusingly similar to an existing trademark registered with the appropriate government agency at the time of the domain name registration:



(ii) Identical or in any way similar with the name of a person other than the registrant, in case of a personal name; and



(iii) Acquired without right or with intellectual property interests in it.



(b) Computer-related Offenses:



(1) Computer-related Forgery. —



(i) The input, alteration, or deletion of any computer data without right resulting in inauthentic data with the intent that it be considered or acted upon for legal purposes as if it were authentic, regardless whether or not the data is directly readable and intelligible; or



(ii) The act of knowingly using computer data which is the product of computer-related forgery as defined herein, for the purpose of perpetuating a fraudulent or dishonest design.



(2) Computer-related Fraud. — The unauthorized input, alteration, or deletion of computer data or program or interference in the functioning of a computer system, causing damage thereby with fraudulent intent: Provided, That if no damage has yet been caused, the penalty imposable shall be one (1) degree lower.



(3) Computer-related Identity Theft. – The intentional acquisition, use, misuse, transfer, possession, alteration or deletion of identifying information belonging to another, whether natural or juridical, without right: Provided, That if no damage has yet been caused, the penalty imposable shall be one (1) degree lower.



(c) Content-related Offenses:



(1) Cybersex. — The willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favor or consideration.



(2) Child Pornography. — The unlawful or prohibited acts defined and punishable by Republic Act No. 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009, committed through a computer system: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be (1) one degree higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775.



(3) Unsolicited Commercial Communications. — The transmission of commercial electronic communication with the use of computer system which seek to advertise, sell, or offer for sale products and services are prohibited unless:



(i) There is prior affirmative consent from the recipient; or



(ii) The primary intent of the communication is for service and/or administrative announcements from the sender to its existing users, subscribers or customers; or



(iii) The following conditions are present:



(aa) The commercial electronic communication contains a simple, valid, and reliable way for the recipient to reject. receipt of further commercial electronic messages (opt-out) from the same source;



(bb) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely disguise the source of the electronic message; and



(cc) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely include misleading information in any part of the message in order to induce the recipients to read the message.



(4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.



SEC. 5. Other Offenses. — The following acts shall also constitute an offense:



(a) Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime. – Any person who willfully abets or aids in the commission of any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.



(b) Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime. — Any person who willfully attempts to commit any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.



SEC. 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be.



SEC. 7. Liability under Other Laws. — A prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws.



CHAPTER III: PENALTIES



SEC. 8. Penalties. — Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Sections 4(a) and 4(b) of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of at least Two hundred thousand pesos (PhP200,000.00) up to a maximum amount commensurate to the damage incurred or both.



Any person found guilty of the punishable act under Section 4(a)(5) shall be punished with imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of not more than Five hundred thousand pesos (PhP500,000.00) or both.



If punishable acts in Section 4(a) are committed against critical infrastructure, the penalty of reclusion temporal or a fine of at least Five hundred thousand pesos (PhP500,000.00) up to maximum amount commensurate to the damage incurred or both, shall be imposed.



Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 4(c)(1) of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of at least Two hundred thousand pesos (PhP200,000.00) but not exceeding One million pesos (PhPl,000,000.00) or both.



Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 4(c)(2) of this Act shall be punished with the penalties as enumerated in Republic Act No. 9775 or the “Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009″: Provided,That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775, if committed through a computer system.



Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 4(c)(3) shall be punished with imprisonment of arresto mayor or a fine of at least Fifty thousand pesos (PhP50,000.00) but not exceeding Two hundred fifty thousand pesos (PhP250,000.00) or both.



Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 5 shall be punished with imprisonment one (1) degree lower than that of the prescribed penalty for the offense or a fine of at least One hundred thousand pesos (PhPl00,000.00) but not exceeding Five hundred thousand pesos (PhP500,000.00) or both.



SEC. 9. Corporate Liability. — When any of the punishable acts herein defined are knowingly committed on behalf of or for the benefit of a juridical person, by a natural person acting either individually or as part of an organ of the juridical person, who has a leading position within, based on: (a) a power of representation of the juridical person provided the act committed falls within the scope of such authority; (b) an authority to take decisions on behalf of the juridical person: Provided, That the act committed falls within the scope of such authority; or (c) an authority to exercise control within the juridical person, the juridical person shall be held liable for a fine equivalent to at least double the fines imposable in Section 7 up to a maximum of Ten million pesos (PhP10,000,000.00).



If the commission of any of the punishable acts herein defined was made possible due to the lack of supervision or control by a natural person referred to and described in the preceding paragraph, for the benefit of that juridical person by a natural person acting under its authority, the juridical person shall be held liable for a fine equivalent to at least double the fines imposable in Section 7 up to a maximum of Five million pesos (PhP5,000,000.00).



The liability imposed on the juridical person shall be without prejudice to the criminal liability of the natural person who has committed the offense.



CHAPTER IVENFORCEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION



SEC. 10. Law Enforcement Authorities. — The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) shall be responsible for the efficient and effective law enforcement of the provisions of this Act. The NBI and the PNP shall organize a cybercrime unit or center manned by special investigators to exclusively handle cases involving violations of this Act.



SEC. 11. Duties of Law Enforcement Authorities. — To ensure that the technical nature of cybercrime and its prevention is given focus and considering the procedures involved for international cooperation, law enforcement authorities specifically the computer or technology crime divisions or units responsible for the investigation of cybercrimes are required to submit timely and regular reports including pre-operation, post-operation and investigation results and such other documents as may be required to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for review and monitoring.



SEC. 12. Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data. — Law enforcement authorities, with due cause, shall be authorized to collect or record by technical or electronic means traffic data in real-time associated with specified communications transmitted by means of a computer system.

Traffic data refer only to the communication’s origin, destination, route, time, date, size, duration, or type of underlying service, but not content, nor identities.



All other data to be collected or seized or disclosed will require a court warrant.



Service providers are required to cooperate and assist law enforcement authorities in the collection or recording of the above-stated information.

The court warrant required under this section shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce and the showing: (1) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated hereinabove has been committed, or is being committed, or is about to be committed: (2) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence that will be obtained is essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any such crimes; and (3) that there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence.



SEC. 13. Preservation of Computer Data. — The integrity of traffic data and subscriber information relating to communication services provided by a service provider shall be preserved for a minimum period of six (6) months from the date of the transaction. Content data shall be similarly preserved for six (6) months from the date of receipt of the order from law enforcement authorities requiring its preservation.



Law enforcement authorities may order a one-time extension for another six (6) months: Provided, That once computer data preserved, transmitted or stored by a service provider is used as evidence in a case, the mere furnishing to such service provider of the transmittal document to the Office of the Prosecutor shall be deemed a notification to preserve the computer data until the termination of the case.



The service provider ordered to preserve computer data shall keep confidential the order and its compliance.



SEC. 14. Disclosure of Computer Data. — Law enforcement authorities, upon securing a court warrant, shall issue an order requiring any person or service provider to disclose or submit subscriber’s information, traffic data or relevant data in his/its possession or control within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt of the order in relation to a valid complaint officially docketed and assigned for investigation and the disclosure is necessary and relevant for the purpose of investigation.



SEC. 15. Search, Seizure and Examination of Computer Data. — Where a search and seizure warrant is properly issued, the law enforcement authorities shall likewise have the following powers and duties.



Within the time period specified in the warrant, to conduct interception, as defined in this Act, and:



(a) To secure a computer system or a computer data storage medium;



(b) To make and retain a copy of those computer data secured;



(c) To maintain the integrity of the relevant stored computer data;



(d) To conduct forensic analysis or examination of the computer data storage medium; and



(e) To render inaccessible or remove those computer data in the accessed computer or computer and communications network.



Pursuant thereof, the law enforcement authorities may order any person who has knowledge about the functioning of the computer system and the measures to protect and preserve the computer data therein to provide, as is reasonable, the necessary information, to enable the undertaking of the search, seizure and examination.



Law enforcement authorities may request for an extension of time to complete the examination of the computer data storage medium and to make a return thereon but in no case for a period longer than thirty (30) days from date of approval by the court.



SEC. 16. Custody of Computer Data. — All computer data, including content and traffic data, examined under a proper warrant shall, within forty-eight (48) hours after the expiration of the period fixed therein, be deposited with the court in a sealed package, and shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the law enforcement authority executing it stating the dates and times covered by the examination, and the law enforcement authority who may access the deposit, among other relevant data. The law enforcement authority shall also certify that no duplicates or copies of the whole or any part thereof have been made, or if made, that all such duplicates or copies are included in the package deposited with the court. The package so deposited shall not be opened, or the recordings replayed, or used in evidence, or then contents revealed, except upon order of the court, which shall not be granted except upon motion, with due notice and opportunity to be heard to the person or persons whose conversation or communications have been recorded.



SEC. 17. Destruction of Computer Data. — Upon expiration of the periods as provided in Sections 13 and 15, service providers and law enforcement authorities, as the case may be, shall immediately and completely destroy the computer data subject of a preservation and examination.



SEC. 18. Exclusionary Rule. — Any evidence procured without a valid warrant or beyond the authority of the same shall be inadmissible for any proceeding before any court or tribunal.



SEC. 19. Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data. — When a computer data is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer data.



SEC. 20. Noncompliance. — Failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter IV hereof specifically the orders from law enforcement authorities shall be punished as a violation of Presidential Decree No. 1829 with imprisonment of prision correctional in its maximum period or a fine of One hundred thousand pesos (Php100,000.00) or both, for each and every noncompliance with an order issued by law enforcement authorities.



CHAPTER VJURISDICTION



SEC. 21. Jurisdiction. — The Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction over any violation of the provisions of this Act. including any violation committed by a Filipino national regardless of the place of commission. Jurisdiction shall lie if any of the elements was committed within the Philippines or committed with the use of any computer system wholly or partly situated in the country, or when by such commission any damage is caused to a natural or juridical person who, at the time the offense was committed, was in the Philippines.



There shall be designated special cybercrime courts manned by specially trained judges to handle cybercrime cases.



CHAPTER VIINTERNATIONAL COOPERATION



Sec. 22. General Principles Relating to International Cooperation — All relevant international instruments on international cooperation in criminal matters, arrangements agreed on the basis of uniform or reciprocal legislation, and domestic laws, to the widest extent possible for the purposes of investigations or proceedings concerning criminal offenses related to computer systems and data, or for the collection of evidence in electronic form of a criminal, offense shall be given full force and effect.



CHAPTER VII: COMPETENT AUTHORITIES

SEC 23. Department of Justice (DOJ). — There is hereby created an Office of Cybercrime within the DOJ designated as the central authority in all matters related to international mutual assistance and extradition.



SEC. 24. Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center. — There is hereby created, within thirty (30) days from the effectivity of this Act, an inter-agency body to be known as the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC), under the administrative supervision of the Office of the President, for policy coordination among concerned agencies and for the formulation and enforcement of the national cybersecurity plan.



SEC. 25. Composition. — The CICC shall be headed by the Executive Director of the Information and Communications Technology Office under the Department of Science and Technology (ICTO-DOST) as Chairperson with the Director of the NBI as Vice Chairperson; the Chief of the PNP; Head of the DOJ Office of Cybercrime; and one (1) representative from the private sector and academe, as members. The CICC shall be manned by a secretariat of selected existing personnel and representatives from the different participating agencies.



SEC. 26. Powers and Functions. — The CICC shall have the following powers and functions:



(a) To formulate a national cybersecurity plan and extend immediate assistance for the suppression of real-time commission of cybercrime offenses through a computer emergency response team (CERT);



(b) To coordinate the preparation of appropriate and effective measures to prevent and suppress cybercrime activities as provided for in this Act;



(c) To monitor cybercrime cases being bandied by participating law enforcement and prosecution agencies;



(d) To facilitate international cooperation on intelligence, investigations, training and capacity building related to cybercrime prevention, suppression and prosecution;



(e) To coordinate the support and participation of the business sector, local government units and nongovernment organizations in cybercrime prevention programs and other related projects;



(f) To recommend the enactment of appropriate laws, issuances, measures and policies;



(g) To call upon any government agency to render assistance in the accomplishment of the CICC’s mandated tasks and functions; and



(h) To perform all other matters related to cybercrime prevention and suppression, including capacity building and such other functions and duties as may be necessary for the proper implementation of this Act.



CHAPTER VIII: FINAL PROVISIONS



SEC. 27. Appropriations. — The amount of Fifty million pesos (PhP50,000,000_00) shall be appropriated annually for the implementation of this Act.



SEC. 28. Implementing Rules and Regulations. — The ICTO-DOST, the DOJ and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) shall jointly formulate the necessary rules and regulations within ninety (90) days from approval of this Act, for its effective implementation.



SEC. 29. Separability Clause — If any provision of this Act is held invalid, the other provisions not affected shall remain in full force and effect.



SEC. 30. Repealing Clause. — All laws, decrees or rules inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. Section 33(a) of Republic Act No. 8792 or the “Electronic Commerce Act” is hereby modified accordingly.



SEC. 31. Effectivity. — This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after the completion of its publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.



Approved,

(Sgd.) FELICIANO BELMONTE JR.Speaker of the Houseof Representatives

(Sgd.) JUAN PONCE ENRILEPresident of the Senate

This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2796 and House Bill No. 5808 was finally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on June 5, 2012 and June 4, 2012, respectively.

(Sgd.) MARILYN B BARUA-YAPSecretary GeneralHouse of Representatives

(Sgd.) EMMA LIRIO-REYESSecretary of the Senate

 
 
Approved: SEP 12 2012

(Sgd.) BENIGNO S. AQUINO IIIPresident of the Philippines



Source: http://www.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175

Monday, October 01, 2012

STOP CYBER MARTIAL LAW!





We are the Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance or PIFA (formerly known as Filipino Internet Freedom Alliance of FIFA -- we're keeping both names), a broad coalition of individuals and organizations seeking to amend / remove the provisions which threaten Internet Freedom in Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. In the long-term, it aims to be the bastion of this freedom.

On October 2, 2012, Tuesday, 10am we will troop to the Supreme Court to let the 3 branches of our government know how we feel about the Cybercrime Prevention Act in its current form. Let's use the power of social media to spread the word. Long live Internet Freedom!!! 




Monday, September 17, 2012

Scholarship on MA in Inter-Asia NGO Studies in South Korea

Sharing this scholarship opportunity on NGO Studies in Seoul, South Korea offered by Sungkonghoe University.


Dear friends, colleagues and applicants for MAINS,

Greetings from Seoul!

As you would already know SungKongHoe University has been
providing a specialized Master's degree program for civil society
practitioners in Asian region for the past six years.

Thanks to your interest and participation the MAINS program has been so far
able to produce a string of competent graduates who play an important role
in many areas of civil society in the region.

We are very pleased to announce that the application procedure for
the 2013 academic year is now open. As has been the case, in this year too,
we are in a position to provide well qualified candidates
with generous educational opportunities.

Please find attached an explanatory note on our program and an application form;
we would be grateful if you could take a look at these and disseminate the news
to anyone who might be interested in the course.

Please also remember that the former students of MAINS are particularly welcome
to nominate the prospective applicant to whom we will pay a due attention.

This is all for now and we will look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Hyo-Je CHO
Director of the MAINS
SungKongHoe University

======================
MAINS, Office of Graduate School,
Sungkonghoe University

TEL : 82-2-2610-4397
Mobile : 82-10-8997-9084
E-mail : asia@skhu.ac.kr



MAINS-2013-Admission Guide(최종배포용)_0913 MAINS 2013 Application Form Official

Monday, July 02, 2012

BKWSU 20th Anniversary Program - CHOOSE HAPPINESS




Dear Friend, 

In this world of do-it-yourself, many books on happiness have been penned by countless authors to help one get back into a more cheerful state of mind. But in reality, depression  remains one of the most persistent but yet silent psychological killers of our times. 

So how does one really choose to be happy? And can one ever hope to remain stable in a happy mood amidst these relentlessly fluctuating times? 

You are warmly invited to join us on our 20th Anniversary program entitled CHOOSE HAPPINESS on Wednesday, July 11, 2012, 6:30 PM at the Topaz Ballroom, 4th Floor,  Gateway Suites at the Araneta Center in Cubao, Quezon City.

Our resource speakers are a duo of experts on happy and contented living: ·         

Dr. Nirmala Kajaria is a medical doctor and a Raja Yoga meditation teacher over the last 40 years. As director of the Brahma Kumaris centers in Asia Pacific, she is now based at the BK headquarters in Mt. Abu, India; and ·         

Mr. Charlie Hogg, international lecturer, motivational speaker and director of the Brahma Kumaris Raja Yoga Centres in Australia. Mr. Hogg has spoken at forums, seminars, retreats and workshops on topics about self-esteem, spirituality, and conflict resolution in more than 60 countries. 

Since this is a free invitational program with limited seats available, please confirm on or before July 6, 2012 through telephone number 414 9421 or text 0916 591 4247 or e-mail us at <quezon@ph.bkwsu.org>   

Very truly yours, 

Rose Uy          
Center Coordinator      
Brahma Kumaris – Quezon City   


Thursday, June 28, 2012

Manila Social Media Day 2012




PRESS RELEASE
26 June 2012

Celebrate Social Media Day 2012 at Tomas Morato, QC this June 30!

The Social Media Day is a worldwide event spearheaded by Mashable.com, which celebrates the connected generation around the world on June 30, 2012. In the Philippines, several key cities would take part in the celebration, which is very appropriate because the country is hailed as the social media capital of the world.

One of these events will be a networking event for social media citizens, bloggers, and digital personalities at Tea 101 Taiwan's No. 1 Drink located at Scout Bayoran corner Tomas Morato Extension, Brgy. Laging Handa, Quezon City. The venue is in front Hotel Rembrandt and IL Terrazzo Mall. The event starts at 7 PM on Saturday. Manila Social Media Day 2012 in particular aims to provide an appropriate venue for the community to mingle and meet-up offline, which can support better camaraderie afterwards through various social media and digital platforms.

The first 100 pre-registered participants at the venue will receive unlimited tea drinks and loot bags. In order to pre-register, just simply e-mail your contact information, social media accounts, and your answer to “What makes you interesting?”

Acclaimed director, producer, writer, & blogger Jose Javier Reyes (@DirekJoey) will share his insights about the new aspects of socialization on the Internet. Manila Social Media Day 2012 is brought to you by Flawless Face & Body Clinic, Smart Communications, the genuine Thermos brand, Wild Ones Tattoo, and Dentiste Toothpaste.

Like our Official Facebook Fanpage: http://www.facebook.com/ManilaSMDay
Follow our Official Twitter Account: http://www.twitter.com/ManilaSMDay
RSVP via Meetup.com: http://www.meetup.com/Mashable/Quezon-City/711752/

International Hashtag: #SMDay
Localized Hashtag: #ManilaSMDay

###

FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT:

King del Rosario
Volunteer Organizer
Manila Social Media Day 2012
@kingdelrosario
manilasocialmedia [@t] gmail.com