The Philippine Online Chronicles

Recently, the National CyberCrime Bill was passed by the Philippine Senate. Across Filipino cyberspace, and in society, there seem to be a great difficulty in explaining what this bill is for ordinary Filipinos. How can an ordinary, non-techie Filipino understand this bill, and the pros and cons being discussed about it?

1. Power to shut down the Internet

According to Section 13, of the Senate version, “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.”

“Prima facie evidence”— which means— “evidence that would, if uncontested, establish a fact or raise a presumption of fact”— empower the Department of Justice to shut down a website.

Say a website— could be Inquirer.net or could be Rappler.com, or a blog like ProPinoy.net published something that the Department of Justice doesn’t like? Well, it has authority to order the shut down of those sites. It doesn’t go to a court to ask. None of those sites can argue before a judge that the action the government wants to do is overkill or unwarranted.

We have seen what has happened in Egypt, and in Arab countries. Section 13 gives government the authority to do the same.

2. CyberSex isn’t what it means

The National Cybercrime Bill pens Cybersex differently from the dictionary meaning. Merriam-Webster defines CyberSex as “Online sex-oriented conversations and exchanges” or as “sex-oriented material available on a computer.”

Cybersex has been around since the dawn of the Internet. It existed on Internet chatrooms, and role playing games. It has created a whole sort of problem like— if you’re a man, is it really a woman you’re having a conversation with? On the one hand with the democratization of technology— Sexting, and other adult activities have sprung between adults who may or may not know each other. Wives, and Husbands; Significant Others have found ways— nothing illicit, but to express themselves online, so hence, the dictionary meaning of the word, cybersex.

According to Senator Angara, the bill seeks to address, not cybersex, but prostitution online. Sites that live stream women, and men can login, pay and have a session. It is, according to Senator Ed Angara, a bill “useful against sites that exploit Filipino children and women”.

That doesn’t sound so bad is it?

On the bill it reads that CyberSex is defined as, “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.”

When asked why the difference between the dictionary meaning and this phrasing on the bill, Senator Angara tweeted, “Prostitution, per Art 202 of the Revised Penal Code, is done habitually. Laws must define terms, not lift from a dictionary.”

The exploit of Filipino women and children— which, according to Senator Angara is the aim of this bill targets live streaming sites that put Filipino women and minors online. As per Senator Angara, Prostitution is defined as done habitually. You can’t get any more habitual than live streaming.

So what we have here is a Bill defining something in the context of law that is far, far removed from what normal people have come to understand the term is. In fact, the context of the bill intends to define CyberSex as CyberProstitution, but extends it.

As per the definition, if a wife would video herself and send it to her husband to convince him to buy her an iPad— and she explicitly asks for it— and this video finds itself on the Internet— doesn’t it qualify as a crime under this bill?

If we were to draw a venn diagram of Cybersex— then wouldn’t prostitution be but a small circle inside it?

How about an adult website like FHM, or FleshAsiaDaily— which cater to adult content. Could it be argued that those sites are lascivious, and if they have ads or some way for a subscriber to pay them— wouldn’t it be considered a violation of this law?

3. Say goodbye to Jailbreaking, Rooting your Phone, Xbox and gadgets

The Cybercrime bill says that access to the whole or any part of a computer system without a right is illegal. It also says that System Interference— the “hindering without right of the functioning of a computer system, by inputting, transmitting, deleting or altering computer data or program” is a crime.

What does this mean? Well, Jailbreaking or rooting your phone, xbox and other gadgets will be a crime. In the United States, Jailbreaking or Rooting isn’t a crime. This gives government power to raid Greenhills where these modification happen.

4. Libel

Libel is defined in the same context as the Revised Penal Code, but committed through a computer system.

What does this mean in Philippine law?

“Libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.”

Remember this is a bill that could be law, so the Implementing Rules and Regulations will be defined by the agencies. The ambiguity of the law— under section 13, coupled with the other provisions of this bill on Libel, on “CyberSex”, gives a chilling effect. This is too much power to the government.

So basically it empowers government that a Facebook status can be grounds to file for libel. A tweet can be reason enough for libel. And remember, truth is not a defense in the Philippines.

5. There is a need for Cybercrime law

Without a doubt there is a need for a cybercrime law. It needs to be less ambiguous, and more definite. It needs to be clear and concise. It needs to be real. It also needs to address real problems, because we do have a real issue.

It is admirable that the Philippine Senate— and Congress as a whole seeks to solve the problem of exploiting women and children. This is commendable, and something we should all take part in.

How the law is written will fall short in doing just that. What it does will simply add layers of bureaucracy, and set a tone for a more authoritarian society rather than a democratic one. It sets the stage for government to encroach upon people’s rights. That should not happen.

Image credit:  Some rights reserved by AVG Technologies