Today, a TRO or temporary restraining order was issued against the enactment of the entire Cybercrime Law. Although it is only good for 120 days, it is better than nothing in this fight for online democracy.
Even though the country heavily needs a law that will preserve order in the online universe, a lot of criticisms were thrown against this highly controversial law. Not because the public is against such a law but because the very manner by which it was crafted failed to fully give justice to the intended beneficiaries.
The Need for A Cybercrime Law
So why do we need a Cybercrime Law?
Simply because the Internet has a become a world of its own where it is now possible for people to transact business, become educated, gain new friends, entertain others and be entertained, connect with social networks, find love and many other things that we usually do in a real non-virtual universe. As such, since the Internet now functions as an alternate universe for many, it has also become another avenue for crime such as cybersex, cyber bullying, identity theft, piracy, hacking and many others.
Although these crimes are done virtually and not directly against a person, their impact are still the same, if not all the more grave. A cyber bullied individual suffers greater damage than someone physically bullied since his bullying might transcend not just the physical confines of where he is currently located but the great expanse of the world-wide web. Take for example the case of Chris Lao, a relatively obscure individual who became famous overnight for a mishap he was involved with which others made fun of. It was an injustice to the guy for which he suffered grave emotional and reputation damages.
Again there are cases of maltreated women like those whose private sex tapes inadvertently make their way to the Internet for public consumption. Take for example the case of Katrina Halili and the many other women who were once lovers of Hayden Kho.
There are also those whose identities become compromised by unscrupulous individuals such as the cases of posers – people who steal someone else’s identity and behave in a totally compromising way online.
The list of internet crimes goes on and on. And admittedly, here in the country, there are almost zero law which governs online use. Of course there are laws which would punish the perpetrators described above but these laws pertain more to the real world and have very little understanding or scope on the virtual world.
The Philippine Cybercrime Law
So here comes the Cybercrime Law- a law attempting to give justice to the victims of online crimes. In itself, the law is good. The law seemed to cover all aspects. There was a provision for cyber bullies, cyber sex offenders, identity thieves, hackers and everyone else who might find a way to commit a crime online. The law was inclusive.
Yet there seems to be a problem.
Various online articles discussed how, to the trained eye, the law is poorly written. To us who were not educated to understand legal jargon, the law can be very persuasive. But leave it to the experts to dissect it further and expose the many loopholes in the law. If the loopholes exist, what guarantee then do we have that the law would stand trial and be able to prosecute those who are guilty?
The Public Reacts to the Law
When the law was passed, it met various protests. Many claimed it was a move to silence democracy in our country. Coincidentally, the law was passed at around the same time the entire nation was remembering the declaration of Martial Law. Many thus associated the act as a declaration of cyber martial law. The day the law was made to take effect, social media erupted in protest as thousands changed their profile pictures in various sites to a plain black photo while others shared photos condemning the said law.
A lot started to fear for their lives while others challenged the government to put them behind bars claiming that there are not enough prison cells in the country to house them. Although most made their threats in jest, there was an underlying seriousness in everyone’s tone.
To date, fifteen (15) petitions against the law were filed in the Supreme Court resulting to a TRO unanimously issued today.
