Towards the end of the 20th century, the
world exponentially changed because of the advancement in technology. From
telegram, telephones, radio, cell phones to the invention of the Internet,
communication has been easier like never before and different types of
information can be accessed anytime wherever you [1]are. Business transactions
became easier as well as personal communications and it has opened a wide range
of possibilities that made it possible to create somewhat a duplicate world of
electronic space.
Undeniably, the Internet is a very useful tool for
communication and information gathering and dissemination, a useful tool for
business, education and a lot more. But as useful as it can be, it has
evidently posted several threats not only to the private lives of individuals
but as well as to public institutions and even to some states of nations by
nature of cyber hacking, bullying, stealing identities and or of private
information, piracy and many more.
With these realities that we now face in the usage of
Internet, there have been many efforts to regulate Internet use throughout the
world. But as we all know the Internet is a complex intertwine of different
networks from all over the world. It has no core author and it’s so complex
that regulating interactions might be seriously difficult.
But despite this circumstance, there have been a lot of
efforts to put restrictions in this chaotic space. In the Philippines, we have
the Electronic Commerce Act RA 8792, Data Privacy Act RA 10173, Public
Telecommunications Policy Act RA 7925 and the recently passed and suspended
Cyber crime Prevention Act RA 10175 of 2012 which have gained attention towards
its passing. Right now its implementation has been suspended because of human
rights issues and its provisions about cyber libel.
On the effort to lobby better legislations for Internet
regulation, another bill is introduced to the congress.“The Magna Carta for the
Philippine Internet Freedom”by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago. Is this a
better law for the Internet? Would the Filipinos graciously adapt this law or
would it again post unconstitutionalities and or violations against human
rights? Let’s examine this bill and find out if it is necessary to pass an
Internet law right now in the Philippines or should we let the status quo as it
is.
Generally, the bill is about the rights of “Netizens”, cyber defense, cyber
security and the Rules and Regulations that would govern the use of the
Internet.Somehow, Filipinos have expressed their belief that it is possible to
regulate the Internet provided that their freedom of expression and privacy
will not be compromised.
Chapter 2, Section 3, paragraph 21 defines cyber intelligence as “the
collection of plans, policies, programs, measures, mechanisms and weapons
designed to defend the Philippines from cyber attack”. Does cyber intelligence
in its process include the power of the authorities to look through private
datum of individuals?
Chapter 3 lays down the Internet rights and Freedom of the Netizens. It is
interesting to see that the bill still supports an open network despite the
efforts of regulating it. It will just mean that there are still no boundaries
as to what and up to what is the jurisdiction of the Philippines in the cyber
space. But unless, the government will hire the best of the best Internet
programmers, it will be hard for the government to monitor all Filipino
websites and contents. Remember that Filipino programmers have been known
worldwide in 2000 when the ‘I LOVE YOU’ worm infected millions of Windows
computer all over the world. With their skills in computer language, it’s
either the government hire them or they will be the government’s number one
headache.
Another question that should be answered is who are the people that are
governed by this law? If the Philippines remain to be an open source it would
it be possible for the government to trace whether a user is indeed a Filipino
citizen? Yes, it is possible for them to trace unique IP address but how can
you make sure that you are targeting the right people from the right Internet
content deemed to be violating the law?
In chapter 5 the bill designated the Department of Information and
Communications Technology as the led agency for oversight. To create a separate
department for this should be given a tough thinking. On the other hand,
involving six agencies to be involved in implementation is good however; it
must be made sure that there is cooperation and collaboration within the said
agencies. The senator was referring to the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 or
Republic Act 10175, which various sectors criticized for allegedly violating
freedom of expression and giving the government too much power over Internet
users. For me, the main purpose of the internet is communication which started
through just plain emails and eventually evolved to these social networking
sites such as facebook and blogsites. True that it has a critical effect to all
internet users which binds them as one in some situations but the thing is they
must not be restricted in doing such act because it is their right and doing
such act is not a criminal act because it is up to the reader weather to
believe in such statements. The user that posted such is just expressing his
thought or feelings which is the main purpose of the website. If cybercrime law
took effect, the internet here in the Philippines will be corrupted just as the
martial law during the time of late president Marcos did, its just that now
will take effect on the internet. If such case would happen the internet will
be a mere dead space and yeah everyones mouth will be covered with black tape
and anyone who removes it will be penalized. A very tragic situation.
Santiago’s bill is the latest among efforts of lawmakers to correct the law.
Other senators and congressmen have filed bills amending p[2]rovisions in the Act.
Santiago said her bill will address the loopholes in the law and achieve its
objectives. “While it is important to crackdown on criminal activities on the
Internet, protecting constitutional rights like free expression, privacy, and
due process should hold a higher place in crafting laws,” she said. The
following are the improvements Santiago cited. First is the real-time
collection of traffic data. Santiago said her bill addresses criticism of the
provision allowing state agents to collect real-time traffic data, which she
said violates the right to privacy. “In contrast, the Magna Carta ensures due
process by providing strict guidelines for any collection of any data,
including the securing of warrants, obligating notification, and limiting
seizure to data and excluding physical property.”
The Magna Carta will be more effective and taken lightly
because it will give notice to the user that he is liable and the government
will want to go into his privacy. Unlike the cybercrime that allows the
government to be god like that can do everything without respecting the rights
of the users that may be liable. In this case the government will ask first the
permission of the user before doing such act. Second is on the so-called
“takedown clause”. Santiago said her bill does not have the so-called “takedown
clause,” which allows government to block or restrict access to a website or
network even without a court order. “My bill specifically provides for court
proceedings in cases where websites or networks are to be taken down, and
prohibits censorship of content without a court order.” Santiago said the
“takedown clause” is dangerous. The Justice Department though has said the
phrase is a misnomer, because blocking or restricting of the data will not be
done arbitrarily. And the third is on double jeopardy. The senator said the
Magna Carta prohibits double jeopardy, unlike the Cybercrime Prevention Act.
She said under the Act, people can be prosecuted for violations against it and
for those under the Revised Penal Code and special laws even though the
offenses are from a single act. Just like what the criminal law applies, the
Magna Carta also applies such as the right against double jeopardy which is the
right of the accused. Santiago said the Magna Carta was the result of
crowdsourcing. She said a group of concerned citizens including software
designers, IT specialists, academics, bloggers, lawyers and engineers
approached her office with a draft of the bill. She said the draft was based on
discussions on social media. If passed into law, SB No 3327 will be the first
law to be created through crowdsourcing she said. In this statement, I truly
agree that the Magna Carta will be a lot effective than the Cyber Crime Law
because it has the opinion of all the experts regarding the jurisdiction of the
law which they drafted carefully and fully opinionated from different views
that’s why the bill is more lenient than the former. Sen Teofisto Guingona III,
the lone senator who voted against the Cybercrime Prevention Act, has also
pushed for crowd sourcing as he crafts amendments to the l[3]aw. Another worth noticing
provision is the inclusion of installation and separation policies with regards
to service providers because it is an often issue to subscribers.
When it comes to cyber crimes, I am quite confident with the provision laid in
the bill but again it all comes down to its implementation and the
identification of jurisdiction in the Philippine cyber space.
One issue that really led to the unsuccessful cyber crime law is its provisions
on libel. While Cyber crime Law made cyber libel punishable, the Magna Carta
for the Philippine Internet Freedom has specifically identified libel with the
exception of expression of protest against the government, NGOs and when it is
intended for private messaging. Quite better than the former provisions of
Cyber crime Law.
The Internet is a unique accidental technology I suppose. There is no central
unit that controls it or is there any way to fully regulate it except if you
control Internet access providers in a country, if you can. But as for now, I
don’t think that regulating the Internet is a good idea for the Philippine
government. I doubt that they will be successful with it. Just the thought that
up to now they still can’t regulate text messaging and call services from
service providers what more with a much complex space like the Internet.
But we are not saying not to regulate it we just believe that it is too early
and the laws governing the Internet is so vague as to jurisdictions and
identifications of content. The Internet will still be evolving and laws too
should. Right now, it is true that it is still insufficient, but the The Magna
Carta for the Philippine Internet Freedom is a good start. Santiago said
the Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom will define and penalize
cybercrimes while protecting rights and freedoms. Based form what senator
Miriam Santiago’s statement, the Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom
will be more effective and reasonable towards the “Netizens” because it is more
lenient than the Cyber Crime Law. Thus I think the latter law is open to
changes because Senator Miriam Santiago named it with version 2.0. just like
with computer programs, it can be upgraded. And I admire her style by matching
the name with the jurisdiction of the law. It’s rare for some law makers to do
such act.
The Magna Carta does not suffer from overbreadth and
vagueness in its provisions on libel, unlike the law it tries to replace. In
fact, it treats libel as a civil liability rather than a criminal act, which is
a step forward in the move to decriminalize libel. I think this is a good
proposal to the “Netizens” because being titled as a criminal is a big deal.
While posting something on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or other social
networking sites that may be a bit offending or libelous may put a person in
jail and called as a criminal is a bit I think exaggerated to happen. In that
case, population of criminals will sky rise just for the reason of expressing
their thoughts through the net.
