Advantages and Disadvantages of R.A. 10173 (Data Privacy Act of 2012) and R.A.

10175 (Cybercrime Prevenntion Act of 2012)

Republic Act No. (RA 10173) or Data Privacy Act of 2012 was approved by PNOY last August 15, 2012. It is an act protecting individual personal information in Information and Communication System in the Government and Private Sector, creating for this purpose a National Privacy Commission and for other purposes. The National Privacy Commission will administer and implement the provisions of this Act and to monitor and ensure compliance of the country with International Standard sets for data protection. The rapidly growing business process outsourcing (BPO) sector of the Philippines is set to benefit from the Data Privacy Act or Republic Act 10173 as it aims to protect personal digital data of private and public entities, specifically those that are dealing with offshore businesses. Benedict Hernandez, Director of the Business Processing Association of the Philippines (BPAP) and President of the Contact Center Association of the Philippines (CCAP), said the local BPO sector must and will abide by the new laws provisions. It is also predicted to attract more investors as it is set to reinforce protection of private data. In an interview, Hernandez also highlighted several uses and benefits of the law to the outsourcing industry and other sectors as well. He added that private information should be handled with outmost confidentiality. Moreover, he said having reinforced data privacy processes will help pave the way for better business practices in companies and more opportunities in attracting potential investors. He reiterated that BPAP will strive to work with the government in implementing and establishing the provisions of the Data Privacy Law. Approved: August 15, 2012 Scope: Applies to the processing of all types of personal information and to any natural or juridical person involved in personal information processing including those personal information controllers and processors who, although not found in the Philippines, use equipment that are located in the

Philippines or those who maintain an office, branch or agency in the Philippines subject to succeeding paragraph; provided that the requirements of section 5 are complied with. Number of of Chapters: 9 Number of Sections: 45 Penalties: Section 33 Combination or Series of Acts : Any combination or series of acts as defined in section 25-32 shall make the person subject to imprisonment ranging from 3-6 years and a fine of not less than 1 Million but not more than 5 Million pesos. Effectivity: 15 days after publication on at least 2 national newspapers of general circulation. Who will benefit for this newly approved Data Privacy Act? It is seen that Information Technology (IT) and Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) industry by making it in line with International Standards of Privacy protection will benefit the most. The rapidly growing business process outsourcing (BPO) sector of the Philippines is set to benefit from the Data Privacy Act or Republic Act 10173 as it aims to protect personal digital data of private and public entities, specifically those that are dealing with offshore businesses. Benedict Hernandez, Director of the Business Processing Association of the Philippines (BPAP) and President of the Contact Center Association of the Philippines (CCAP), said the local BPO sector must and will abide by the new laws provisions. It is also predicted to attract more investors as it is set to reinforce protection of private data. In an interview, Hernandez also highlighted several uses and benefits of the law to the outsourcing industry and other sectors as well. He added that private information should be handled with outmost confidentiality. Moreover, he said having reinforced data privacy processes will help pave the way for better business practices in companies and more opportunities in attracting potential investors. He reiterated that BPAP will strive to work with the government in implementing and establishing the provisions of the Data Privacy Law.

While the disadvantage of RA 10173 poses an equally if not more than alarming penalties not only for the long-time netizens but moreso for those who are newbies in using the internet or any kind of information technology media. Ordinary Filipinos, especially those who are computer illiterate, those with no access to, or seldom use the computer or any device that have the capabilities to store and transfer sensitive personal information may be prosecuted in courts of the Philippines due to improper handling of information or negligence.

Accessing Personal Information and Sensitive Personal Information Due to Negligence

What alarms me the most are the penalty clauses stating that anyone can be penalized by imprisonment and will be fined in gargantuan proportions for accessing personal information of another individual or entity. Even if she/he did not mean to. SEC. 26. Accessing Personal Information and Sensitive Personal Information Due to Negligence. (a) Accessing personal information due to negligence shall be penalized by imprisonment ranging from one (1) year to three (3) years and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00) but not more than Two million pesos (Php2,000,000.00) shall be imposed on persons who, due to negligence, provided access to personal information without being authorized under this Act or any existing law. (b) Accessing sensitive personal information due to negligence shall be penalized by imprisonment ranging from three (3) years to six (6) years and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00) but not more than Four million pesos (Php4,000,000.00) shall be imposed on persons who, due to negligence, provided access to personal information without being authorized under this Act or any existing law. http://astigsearch.blogspot.com/2012/10/before-ra-10175-there-was-ra10173.html#6mlZIQpVrwbFqfFJ.99 Cybercrime Prevention Law or Republic Act 10175 was officially signed by President Benigno Aquino III on Wednesday, September 12, 2012.

Cybercrime Prevention Law aims to combat computer-related offenses such as hacking, child pornography, and even online libel . You read it right, Republic Act 10175 includes online libel. This will cut your freedom to express your opinions, thus no more freedom of speech. How come our government officials are bringing in more restrictions to legitimate bloggers and commentators online? One thing that I can think is because of the claimed bullying tactics against Tito Sotto who was accused of plagiarizing numerous articles online. Let me quote GMA news online what they read in Chapter II of the Cybercrime Prevention law. (Original PDF link is available at http://www.gov.ph/downloads/2012/09sep/20120912-RA-10175-BSA.pdf ) Illegal access to a computer system Illegal interception of data Data interference, including intentional alteration or damaging of data System interference, including damaging or altering computer data or programs as well as the use of viruses Misuse of devices Use, production, sale, procurement, importation, distribution or making available without right of malware, passwords or codes Cybersquatting Computer-related forgery Computer-related draud Computer-related identity theft Cybersex Child pornography Unsolicited commercial communication

According to Justice Secretary Leila de Lima yesterday reiterated that theres nothing unconstitutional in the Cybercrime Prevention Act and that

all the legal questions hurled by critics could be addressed by the implementing rules and regulations (IRR). De Lima bared that she had reviewed the law and cant see any unconstitutional provision in it. Some sectors have questioned libel provision but we should remember that it is already a criminal offense under existing law. The only issue is the propriety or imposition of higher degree of penalty, which is not a constitutional issue, she explained. While she agreed with critics that there are vague provisions in the law, they could be clarified in the IRR. She again dispelled fears the constitutional rights of citizens in cyberspace would be violated in the implementation of the new law. She reiterated that the law would be implemented gradually and very prudently pending creation of the IRR and enforcers would focus first on palpable cybcercrimes like hacking and other syndicated crimes for the meantime. The disadvantages of this law are the following: 1. Martial Law imposed online RA 10175 was dubbed as an e-Martial Law legislation, as like several famous Marcos-era decrees, particularly President Ferdinand Marcos Letter of Instruction No. 1, which led to the sequestration of several media outfits during Martial Law, the passage of RA 10175 has a chilling impact to bloggers, online journalists, advocacy groups and normal netizens. Basically, the Cybercrime Law seeks to silence opposition both in the real world and online. 2. RA 10175 targets your rights, not cybercrimes While the Cybercrime Law lists several online offenses, the inclusion of online libel and other contentious provisions that impinge upon netizens free speech, privacy, and right to due process essentially targets the civil rights of Internet users. The Cybercrime Law is even far worse than the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act, that were pushed in the US Congress earlier this year but failed to prosper, as RA 10175 limits not only content but also democratic space.

Under this law, politicians can easily file charges against hostile and combative critics and witnesses by claiming that virtual protesters have threatened their life and property. Instead of dealing with cyberwarfare, NBI agents and DOJ prosecutors may soon be swamped with cybercrime cases filed by showbiz actors, politicians, business tycoons, and other untouchables who want to punish their online critics. 3. DOJ as Internet overlord Under the new law, the DOJ is granted superpowers on the Internet, especially under Section 19 that states, 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. Under such provision, the DOJ can take down websites that it suspects upon initial observation to be violating RA 10175. This effectively gives DOJ total control of the Internet in the Philippines. As only prima facie evidence is needed, the new law has done away with due process. Online censorship under Section 19 is more encompassing than traditional censorship. If for example, an online article is said to be libellous, DOJ may order the total shutdown of its host domain, effectively censoring not just the article in question, but also other articles in that site a clear violation of the constitutional right to free speech. 4. Ban social networking sites There may come a time when DOJ and the courts will be swamped with reports of violations of the Anti-Cybercrime Law committed in sites like Facebook, Twitter, and 9gag. The violations are not limited to libellous material people can report phishing, illegal access and other violations being committed in these sites, and it would become more practical for DOJ to simply block access not only to the content or data in question but to the very sites themselves. DOJ is thus effectively given the power to cut Philippine access to Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites. This is how restrictive the new law is. 5. Imprisoned for Likes, Retweets Due to vague provisions in RA 10175, even Facebook likes and retweets can incriminate netizens.

Section 5, for example, punishes any person who willfully abets or aids in the commission of cybercrimes. Reposting libel material, therefore, could land you in jail. 6. Say goodbye to torrents Even torrents and file sharing may soon be outlawed, as sharing pirated materials is punishable under the Cybercrime Law. As such, even seeders might be incriminated once authorities crack down on illegal downloads. 7. Watch your posts, Big Brother is watching - Chapter IV Section 12, authorizes the DOJ and the NBI to collect traffic data from users even without a court warrant. RA 10175 defines data as data which include the electronic communications origin, destination, route, time, date, size, duration and even type of service. The said provision excludes the collection of content or identities of electronic files, both of which require a court warrant before state authorities can lawfully collect said information. But there are now advanced methods that can reveal identities and other private information simply from traffic data. Collection of such information goes against several provisions of the 1987 Constitution, including Section 3(1) of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution states, 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. 8. All your e-mails, chat messages and online activity can be used against you - In RA 10175, the power to compel the disclosure of computer data through a court order has been granted to law enforcement authorities. Upon issuance of a court warrant, Internet service providers can even be compelled by the government to produce all available data for any particular subscriber. This means all your private correspondence and communications you send can be used against you in court. 9. You can be framed easily Cybercrimes can be committed in such a way that a particular netizen can easily be framed or accused of committing the offense. A potential hacker, for example, can use your online data while launching attacks. As DOJ only needs partial information to issue takedown orders, your data, privacy, and your property can easily be seized and investigated by authorities, even if youre innocent.

10. The government can even take and destroy your data plus your gadgets If youve been accused of committing cybercrimes, Section 15 and 16 of RA 10175 empowers law enforcement agencies to seize your computer data including the computer system (aka your gadgets) for investigation. They can hold your data for up to 30 days, after which, law enforcement authorities can destroy your seized property. 11. Higher penalties for all crimes - The new law was seemingly drafted with the mindset that crimes committed online is graver than those committed in the real world, as a provision in the Cybercrime Prevention Law effectively raises the punishment for crimes committed with the aid of computer systems. Section 6 of RA 10175 states, 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 degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be. To illustrate, a person who commits crimes such as theft and kidnapping with the aid of ICT may get six to to 30 more years in jail than those committing the same crimes without the use of computers and ICT. Similarly, committing online libel will result to longer prison sentences. The penalty for printed libel under the Revised Penal Code is only six months to four years. However, applying the one degree higher clause in RA 10175 when the libel is committed online, the penalty is raised to six to 12 years. 12. Yes, calls and texts are also covered by the new law - But I dont go online that often, you might say. But remember, cellular phones, especially smartphones, are also considered as computer systems.

Privacy in constitutions: The data

Privacy International has compiled data on the privacy provisions in national constitutions around the world, including which countries have constitutional protections, whether they come from international agreements, what aspects of privacy are actually protected and when those protections were enacted. We are pleased to make this information available under a Creative Commons license for organizations, researchers, students and the community at large to use to support their work (and hopefully contribute to a greater understanding of privacy rights). The categories: Though the right to privacy exists in several international instruments, the most effective privacy protections come in the form of constitutional articles. Varying aspects of the right to privacy are protected in different ways by different countries. Broad categories include:

protection against searches of the home protection of personal communications and correspondence the right to have ones data protected from misuse right to family life habeas data, i.e. the right to see what data someone or some agency holds about you and correct if it is incorrect

We have used similar categories to organize the relevant articles, making it possible to quickly gain an overview a given countries constitutional privacy regime. Qualifications on rights Some constitutional rights are absolute, the right to privacy typically is not. The effectiveness of a constitutional protection of privacy depends not only on the presence of a protection, but also upon how exceptions to the protection are defined (e.g. for the prevention of crime or national security).

Where there is a lack of detail in a provision, there is a danger that a judge will be unable to support an interpretation that protects individuals rights when such an interpretation would be highly unpopular with the government of the day. Final thoughts and conditions of use For each country that has a provision for the right to privacy, the spreadsheet includes the date that the constitution was accepted as law and necessary hyperlinks to the actual document. We imagine that it might be possible visualize this information. Ways we have imagined include: how different constitutions have borrowed language from international conventions and each other an illustration of which countries protect which categories of privacy the growth over time of constitutionally protected privacy rights globally This research is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial 3.0 Unported License . We ask that you credit us with the initial research and, if possible, we would ask that you let us know what you have done with the information as we would be excited to know how it is being used. If you have further questions be sure to get in touch with us.

CHAPTER: I. Legal framework Constitutional privacy framework Article 3 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution stipulates the country's Bill of Rights. The following sections related to privacy are contained in the Constitution: 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. 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. Criminal law Search and seizure: The Revised Penal Code1 criminalises the unlawful entry, search or seizure by any public officer or employee (Art. 128), and imposes the penalty of prision correccional2 in its minimum period to such act. Prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods when such acts occur at nighttime, or where papers or effects are not returned immediately after a search. When a proper search is conducted in the absence of the relevant individual, a member of their family or two witnesses residing in the same locality, the Code imposes a penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods (Art. 130). The malicious acquisition and use of search warrants is also criminalized in the Code,

which imposes a penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding PHP1,000 (Art. 129). Falsification of documents: The Revised Penal Code creates a number of offences related to the falsification of documents by private individuals, and the use of falsified documents. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than PHP5,000 is applicable to such crimes, which encompass acts of falsification of public or official documents or commercial documents (Art. 172) or wireless, cable, telegraph and telephone messages (Art. 173). The falsification of medical certificates, certificates of merit or services and the like is also addressed by the Revised Penal Code, which imposes the penalties of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding PHP1,000 on any physician or surgeon who, in connection with the practice of his profession, issues a false certificate; or any public officer who issues a false certificate of merit of service, good conduct or similar circumstances (Art. 174). The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any private person who commits a similar offence, and upon anyone who knowingly uses falsified certificates (Art. 175) Discovery and revelation of secrets: Any public officer who reveals any secret known by him by reason of his official capacity, or who wrongfully delivers papers or copies of papers of which he may have charge and which should not be published, is liable under Art. 229 of the Revised Penal Code.If the revelation of such secrets or the delivery of such papers causes serious damage to the public interest, the public officer is liable for the penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, perpetual special disqualification and a fine not exceeding PHP2,000. Otherwise, the penalties of prision correccional in its minimum period, temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding PHP50 will be imposed. If a public officer, to whom the secrets of any private individual have become known by reason of his office, reveals such secrets, they are liable for penalties of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding PHP1,000 (Art. 230). Any private individual who, in order to discover the secrets of another, seize his papers or letters and reveals the contents thereof, is liable for a penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding PHP500. If the secrets are acquired but not reveled, the penalty is arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding PHP500 (Art. 290). However, this provision is not applicable to parents, guardians, or persons entrusted with the custody of minors with respect to the papers or letters of the children or minors placed under their care or custody, nor to access to the papers or letters of spouses by each other. Art. 291 of the Revised Penalty Code applies to managers, employees or servants who,

in their capacity, learn the secrets of their employers, principals or masters and reveal such secrets. In such a case, a penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding PHP500 is applicable. Where such secrets amount to industrial secrets, the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding PHP500 applies (Art. 292). Trespass: Trespass is governed by Articles 280 and 281 of the Revised Penal Code. Trespass is punishable by penalties of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding PHP1,000 (Art. 280). If the offense is committed by means of violence or intimidation, the penalty is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos. Libel: Although the Constitutional protections related to privacy do not connect the right to privacy with the protection of reputation and honour, statutory provisions in the Revised Penal Code articulate a number of crimes in this respect. Libel is defined as 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 (Art. 353). The legislation stipulates that every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown (Art. 354). There are two exceptions to this principle, namely (1) A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and (2) A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions. Libel committed by means of writing or other similar means is punishable by a penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from PHP200 to 6,000, or both, in addition to any civil action which may be brought by the offended party (Art. 355). Threats to commit libel attract a penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from PHP200 to 2,000, or both. Slander: Oral defamation (slander) is criminalized by Art. 258 of the Revised Penal Code. It is punishable by a penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding PHP200, where it is of a serious and insulting nature, it is punishable by a penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. Where slander is committed by deed, it is punishable by the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period

or a fine ranging from PHP200 to 1,000 (Art. 359). If said act is not of a serious nature, the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding PHP200. Publication of defamatory statements: Any person who publishes, exhibits, or causes the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means is liable under the law (Art. 360). The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication, is responsible for the defamations contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author thereof. Furthermore, any reporter, editor or manager or a newspaper, daily or magazine, who publishes facts connected with the private life of another and offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of said person, even though said publication be made in connection with or under the pretext that it is necessary in the narration of any judicial or administrative proceedings wherein such facts have been mentioned, is liable for punishment of the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine of from PHP20 to 2,000, or both (Art. 357). Voyeurism and pornography: The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 (RA No. 9775)3 prohibits the act of photo or video voyeurism, as well as the publication, broadcasting, sharing, exhibition, and distribution of photos or videos resulting from this illegal act. The Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (RA No. 9775)4 law protects children from abuse and exploitation from being used in pornographic performances and being coerced to engage in pornography through whatever means. The law also ensures the confidentiality of the identity of any child involved in child pornographyduring investigation, prosecution, or trial, and provides mandatory services for victims such as emergency shelter, counselling, free legal, medical, and psychological services, and educational assistance. Any person who produces, distributes, or publishes such material or commits other related acts would also be subject to penalties. Internet service providers and Internet content hosts may be held liable.5 Penalties include fines ranging between PHP50,000 and PHP5,000,000 and reclusion perpetua as the gravest penalty. Currently awaiting parliamentary assent, the Anti-Obscenity and Pornography Bill of 20086 criminalises the publication, broadcast, and exhibition of pornographic materials through all means, including online means, for the protection of morality. Cybercrime Until 2012, the Electronic Commerce Act (Republic Act No. 8792, s. 2000)7 was the primary Filipino legislation pertaining to online privacy. Section 31 of the Act provides that access to an electronic file, or an electronic signature of an electronic

data message or electronic document shall only be authorized and enforced in favor of the individual or entity having a legal right to the possession or the use of the plain text, electronic signature or file and solely for the authorized purposes. The electronic key for identity or integrity shall not be made available to any person or party without the consent of the individual or entity in lawful possession of that electronic key. Unauthorized access into or interference in a computer system/server or information and communication system, including the introduction of computer viruses and the like, is punishable by a minimum fine of PHP100,000 and a maximum commensurate to the damage incurred and a mandatory imprisonment of six months to three years. Piracy or the unauthorized copying, reproduction, dissemination, distribution, importation, use, or broadcasting of protected material, electronic signature or copyrighted works in a manner that infringes intellectual property rights is punishable by a minimum fine of PHP100,000 and a maximum commensurate to the damage incurred and a mandatory imprisonment of six months to three years. On September 12, 2012, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA No. 10175)8 came into force. The Act creates a number of offences, including (Section 4): 1. Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems, including illegal access, illegal interception, data interference, system interference, misuse of devices, and cybersquatting; 2. Computer-related offenses such as computer-related forgery, computerrelated fraud, computer-related identity theft; and 3. Content-related Offenses, including cybersex, child pornography, unsolicited commercial communications, and libel. Aiding or abetting the commission of cybercrime and attempt in the commission of cybercrime is also included as other offenses under Section 5. In addition, the Act stipulates that all crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies, are covered by the Cybercrime Prevention Act, and the penalty for such crimes is degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code (Section 6). The punishments contained the Act include the imprisonment of prision mayor and fines of between PHP100,000 and PHP500,00 (Section 7). The Act provides for

corporate liability (Section 9) and imposes double penalties for Acts committed by a corporate actor up to a maximum of PHP10,000,000. The Act declares that the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) are responsible for the efficient and effective law enforcement of the provisions of the Act. The NBI and the PNP are mandated to organize a cybercrime unit or center manned by special investigators to exclusively handle cases involving violations of the Act (Section 10). To ensure that the technical nature of cybercrime and its prevention is given focus, law enforcement authorities are required under the Act 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 for review and monitoring (Section 11). Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data: Law enforcement authorities, are authorized by the Act to collect or record by technical or electronic means traffic data in realtime associated with specified communications transmitted by means of a computer system. Under the Act, 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 traffic data. 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 any witnesses he may produce sufficiently demonstrating (Section 12): 1. That there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated in the Act have been committed, are being committed or are about to be committed; 2. That there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution or prevention of, such crimes; and 3. That there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence. Preservation of Computer Data: In accordance with the Act, the integrity of traffic data and subscriber information relating to communication services provided by a service provider must now be preserved for a minimum period of six months from

the date of the transaction. Content data must be similarly preserved for six 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 months (Section 13). Disclosure of Computer Data: Law enforcement authorities, upon securing a court warrant, may 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 hours from receipt of the order in relation to a valid complaint officially docketed and assigned for investigation, provided the disclosure is necessary and relevant for the purpose of investigation (Section 14). Search, Seizure and Examination of Computer Data: Where a search and seizure warrant is properly issued, the law enforcement authorities likewise have the power to conduct interception, as defined in this Act, and the power: To secure a computer system or a computer data storage medium; To make and retain a copy of those computer data secured; To maintain the integrity of the relevant stored computer data; To conduct forensic analysis or examination of the computer data storage medium; and To render inaccessible or remove those computer data in the accessed computer or computer and communications network. 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 but in no case for a period longer than 30 days from date of approval by the court (Section 15). Custody of Computer Data: The Act prescribes that all computer data, including content and traffic data, examined under a proper warrant must be deposited with the court in a sealed package, accompanied by an affidavit of the law enforcement authority, within 48 hours of the expiration of the warrant. The package is not to 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 (Section 16). Destruction of Computer Data: Upon expiration of the periods as provided in Sections 13 and 15, service providers and law enforcement authorities must immediately and completely destroy the computer data subject of a preservation and examination (Section 17). Exclusionary Rule: Any evidence procured without a valid warrant or beyond the authority of a warrant is inadmissible for any proceeding before any court or tribunal (Section 18). 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 Department of Justice can issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer data (Section19). Competent Authorities: The Act establishes an Office of Cybercrime within the Department of Justice designated as the central authority in all matters related to international mutual assistance and extradition (Section 23). The Act also establishes a Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center, 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 cyber security plan (Section 24). Reaction to the legislation: Following the enactment of the law, petitions were immediately filed requesting the Supreme Court to issue temporary restraining orders to several government agencies from implementing several provisions of the law which were seen as unconstitutional. Problematic provisions cited by the party list Alab ng Mamamahayag (ALAM) are: Section 4c, which penalizes online libel defining it as an act committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future ; and Section 12, which makes it illegal 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 ; and Section 20, which enumerates the penalties for violating the law.9

Critics have argued that the law creates a chilling effect on the public , violating media freedom and giving too much power to the Department of Justice.10 ALAM argues that the 1987 Constitution states that no law shall be passed to limit the freedom of expression, speech and press and that it was stupid for those who crafted the law to consider unsolicited advertisement, defined as the transmission of commercial electronic communication with the use of computer system which seek to advertise, sell, or offer for sale products and services, as cybercrime.11 Journalist organizations have launched a campaign to stop the implementation of the implementation. Aside from the chilling effect caused by the law, there is the added concern of higher degrees of punishment imposed by the Act.12 The petitioners challenged the government to prove that the Cybercrime Law would not violate peoples' "most fundamental right" under Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, by passing the "substantive due process test" and the "equal protection challenge .13 The Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG), one of the government agencies tasked with implementing the Cybercrime Law, said that itwill need further clarification on the Law before they can begin to implement it. CIDG Director Samuel Pagdilao Jr. welcomed the new Law but added that the implementing rules and regulation of the Law must be detailed and clarified.14 The Director assured that Section 12 of the Law shall only be exercised if there is an existing complaint or if there is strong evidence to warrant gathering of traffic data relating to acts such as hacking or terrorism.15Further, the CIDG shall only monitor the IP address and not the content passing through it.16 Another group filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to issue a temporary restraining order against government agencies from implementing the following provisions17: Section 4 (c)[4],which criminalizes libel, not only on the internet, but also on "any other similar means which may be devised in the future"; Section 6, which raises by one degree higher the penalties provided for by the Revised Penal Code for all crimes committed through and with the use of information and communications; Section 7, which provides that apart from prosecution under the assailed law, any person charged for the alleged offense covered will not be spared from violations of the Revised Penal Code and other special laws; Section 12, which authorizes law enforcement authorities to "collect or record by technical or electronic means" communications transmitted through a computer system; and

 Section 19, whichauthorizes the DOJ to block access to computer data when such data "is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act." They reasoned that real time data collection of traffic data violates the right to privacy and the right against unreasonable searches and seizure, while stressing that the questioned provisions of the law "inter-operate with each other to create a 'chilling effect'" upon constitutional freedoms.18 On October 9, 2012, the Supreme Court of the Philippines issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) covering a period of 120 days. At the same time, it ordered the Solicitor General to comment within ten days on the petitions filed against the law. The court also set the case for oral argument on January 15, 2013. Civillaw The Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 386, s. 1949)19 governs the application of civil actions. Chapter 2 of the Code regulates human relations, and mandates that every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons (Art. 26). The following and similar acts give rise to an action for damages, prevention and other relief (Art. 26): 1. Prying into the privacy of another's residence; 2. Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another; 3. Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends; and 4. Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition. Anyone who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person is liable for damages under the law (Art. 32): 1. The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures; 2. The liberty of abode and of changing the same; and 3. The privacy of communication and correspondence.

Data protection: The Data Privacy Act of 2012 (Republic Act 10173)20 preserves the citizen's right of privacy of communication while ensuring the free flow of information and recognizing the role of information and communications technology in nation-building and its obligation to ensure that personal information in information and communications systems in government and private sector are secured and protected. The Act covers the processing of personal information and those involved in processing said information. It does not amend or repeal the provisions of Republic Act 5321 that exempts the publisher, editor or reporter of any publication from revealing the source of published news or information obtained in confidence. The Act is primarily designed to address the privacy concerns raised by the Business Process Outsourcing (BPO). The BPO industry is seen to benefit most from the enactment of the law which, by increasing the data protection standards in the Philippines, is projected to allow for an increase in BPO revenue, from US$9 billion in 2011 to US$25 billion by 2016, and an expansion of industry employment to four million in the same time period.22 Prior to being signed into law, media groups appealed against Section 30 of the Senate version of the bill (SB 296523) where, in case of a breach in confidentiality of information results in it being published by the media, the responsible reporter, writer, president, publisher, manager and editor-in-chief shall be held liable. The Economic Journalists Association of the Philippines saw the provisions as a tool that can be used to harass media and suppress its guaranteed freedom.24 Other groups have maintained that the restrictive position would have a chilling effect on journalists.25 Despite the absence of the provision in the RA 10173, the law is worded vaguely that it could apply to almost anything online, not just the personal medical information being handled by BPOs.26 The Law also provides for a National Privacy Commission to monitor and ensure the country s compliance with international data protection standards. Guidelines for the Protection of Personal Data in Information and Telecommunication System in the Private Sector: In 2006, the Department of Trade and Industry adopted the Administrative Order No. 8 (s. 2006) Guidelines for the Protection of Personal Data in Information and Telecommunication System in the Private Sector. 27The objective of the Order is to encourage and provide support to private entities to adopt personal data protection policies, and provide rules for data protection certifiers in Philippines. General principles for the protection of personal data in the Order require that personal data be:

 Collected for specified and legitimate purposes determined before collecting the personal data and processed in compliance with those purposes; Processed accurately, fairly, and lawfully; Accurate and, when appropriate, up-to-date (inaccurate or incomplete data must be corrected, supplemented, or destroyed); Identical, adequate, and according to the purposes for which it is collected and processed; and Kept in a form that allows identification of the data subject, and for no longer than it is necessary for the purposes for which it was collected and processed. Personal data can only be processed when: The data subject has given his/her unambiguous consent; The personal data processing is the result of the data subject contractual obligation; The data processing is vitally important' to protect the data subject, including life and health; or The data controller is required to process personal data in compliance with his/her lawful obligations and only to the extent authorised by the parties. Section 6 of the Order provides that access to personal data in an information or communications system shall only be authorised in favour of the individual or entity having a legal right to the possession or the use of the file and solely for the authorised purpose. It shall not be made available to any person or party without the consent of the individual or entity in lawful possession, or in the absence of court order. Section 7 of the Order establishes the confidentiality principle, and Section 8 addresses the issue of security of data, requiring data controllers to implement organisational and technical means to assure protection of personal data from destruction, alteration, or disclosure. The Order also mandates the Department of Trade and Industry to create a Privacy Complaints Office to address related issues that may surface in the implementation of the Order.

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 provides for the preservation of traffic data and subscriber information for a minimum period of six months from the date of the transaction. Content data shall be similarly preserved for six 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 months provided that once the computer data preserved, transmitted, or stored by a service provider is required as evidence in a case, the mere act of furnishing the service provider with a copy of the transmittal document sent 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 shall keep confidential the computer data ordered to be preserved (Section 13). The same Act provides that law enforcement authorities, upon securing a court warrant, must issue an order requiring any person or service provider to disclose or submit subscriber information, traffic data, or relevant data in his/its possession or control within 72 hours of receipt of an order in relation to a valid complaint, officially docketed and assigned for investigation, as long as the disclosure is necessary and relevant for the purpose of investigation (Section 14). Writ of Habeas Data28: The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data (2 February 2008) is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty, or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting, or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home, and correspondence of the aggrieved party. The petition may be filed with the Regional Trial Court where the petitioner or respondent lives, or that which has jurisdiction over the place where the data or information is gathered, collected, or stored, at the option of the petitioner. It may also be filed with the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals or the Sandigan bayan, when the action concerns public data files of government offices.

Political Dynasty in the Philippines Political Dynasty in the Philippines Arroyo and son eye Congress seats in 2010 Family dynasties bind politics in Philippines Clans still rule in 14th House but fewer in ranks Political Dynasties The Seven Ms of Dynasty Building The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: Article 2 - Declaration of Principles and State Policies, Section 26: The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law prohibit = disallow = forbid The problem is, the framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution failed to define the law to implement the prohibition of political dynasty. They left-out the construction of the enabling law on how to implement the prohibition of political dynasty. It means they entrusted the task of making the law about political dynasty in the Congress. Philippine Congress passing a law prohibiting political dynasty? You must be dreaming. You should not expect the 'wise men' of the congress to shoot their own foot and hoofs. For over 20 years now already, the Philippine Congress has been sitting in their hands continually ignoring to make a law accompanying the article in the Constitution to prohibit Political dynasty in the Philippines. They are busy passing laws in renaming streets. Or are they just incapable on defining what is political dynasty actually means? Political clans / families has been walking all over the Philippine Senate, congress, local and national public offices. Grandparents, Father, Mother and siblings are taking turns on different seats of power all over the archipelago.

Why do people vote them? Familiarity? Family name is all over the nearby places? Family name of political clans are all over the place. Waiting shades are named after their family names, basketball courts, schools, etc. etc. etc. Naming government projects (that was constructed using tax payer's money) after a politician is wrong. Why do people vote them? Sometimes there are no other choice. In the upcoming Philippine Presidential election 2010: we have no choice.

Noynoy Aquino belongs to the political family of the Aquino clan in Tarlac Chiz Escudero belongs to the political family of the Escudero clan in Sorsogon Manny Villar belongs to the political family of the Villar clan in Las Pinas Joseph Estrada belongs to the political family of the Villar clan in San Juan Gilbert Teodoro belongs to the political family of the Cojuangco\Teodoro clan in Tarlac

ergo: They all belong/connected to families that are politically active. Their family members take turns on official political positions in the government. Why do people vote them? Sometimes there are no other choice. Can we now expect a law to be passed prohibiting political dynasty in accordance to our Philippine constitution? The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: Article 2 - Declaration of Principles and State Policies, Section 26: The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law prohibit = disallow = forbid

Being senators and congressmen, they are representatives of the the state/congress that should be passing laws under our Philippines Constitution. Obviously, our 'honorable' lawmen have failed on their job defining the prohibition of political dynasty. Or, is the prohibition of the political dynasty is just a decoration on our constitution? We cannot even hear our lawmakers discussing political dynasty included on the list of their agendas. Just like Jueteng (illegal numbers game), Political dynasty is wrong but is very-well accepted by the Philippine society. Is political dynasty wrong? Yes. It is prohibited on the Philippine Constitution. Is political dynasty beneficial to Philippines? Philippines is literally/figuratively soaked in mud. It only depends on how deep you are stucked. For decades, political clans have been roaming and ruling public offices. What do we get from the past decades of family superiority over their constituents and dominions? What do we get? mud. *note: as every rule there are still exemptions. *example: the Fernando clan in Marikina has been doing a great job but still: this should not justify in violating the prevailing statement of our supreme law of the land The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: Article 2 - Declaration of Principles and State Policies, Section 26: The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law prohibit = disallow = forbid We have no choice but to accept political dynasty even if it is prohibited by the constitution. It is like a relief food packed inside a styro foam with the label of the name of politician. If you're a flood victim, to avoid starving to death in the middle of a cold

storm and flood. You have no choice but to eat your pride and principle and get the donated food by the politician.

PUBLISHED ON 01 OCTOBER 2011

Philippine political dynasties

By Anthony Ngayan

The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law. The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Article II, Declaration of Principles and State Policies, Section 26.

Prominent and influential people and families have controlled much of Philippine politics since colonial times. During the Spanish era, the conquistadors gave political power to their favouredmestizos (i.e. Filipinos with Spanish blood) or the Illustrados (educated Filipinos from wealthy families). These people in turn, wielded some authority and influence over their respective communities, provinces and constituencies. Political dynasties were established and continue to exist up to the present times. It is a common fact in the country that family members of incumbent politicians run for public office. National and local elections are dominated by these politically empowered families. Up to now, however, the political dynasties have not been clearly defined by law in the Philippines. This condition allows and is being used by incumbent politicians to push their family members to pursue political careers. And of course, seeing how these family members observe and experience the prestige, power, and influence of being in politics, they are more inclined to pursue the same career path. This system then leads to an increased and increasing number of family members holding public office creating the undefined political dynasties. Being in politics gives a person the power and influence over his area of jurisdiction including its public resources. This could be overwhelming to a person and much more to a family with more than one politician. The basic power and influence of a politician tends to widen as the term of office goes on and the existence of people around them with vested interests to obtain the politicians endorsement and approval. This system in turn overpowers the politician and paves the way to make decisions to the politicians gain and benefit and that of the more privileged constituencies thereby losing sight of the politicians morals and inherent obligations towards good governance and uplifting the lives of the less fortunate. The overwhelming power and influence plus the exposure to unsolicited and solicited favours eventually lead the politicians to become greedy and corrupt. This has been going on and on, never ending, and more of this greediness and corruption could be expected from the existence of political dynasties. To be in politics has become a lucrative business in the process. This political system in the Philippines is one of the major causes of the downfall of the countrys economy to the detriment of the struggling Filipinos and the whole country. The explanatory note from Senate Bill-2649: Anti-Political Dynasty Act of the Constitution, Article II, Section 26 states:

To give force and effect to this provision, the playing field of the political arena should belevelled and opened to persons who are equally qualified to aspire on even terms with those from ruling politically dominant families. Philippine society, many sociologists note, revolves around the system of extended families. However, this extended family system, an otherwise beneficial concept when applied to the social aspects of human behaviour, finds its pernicious effects in the political arena where public office becomes the exclusive domain of influential families and clans that are well-entrenched in Philippine politics. The monopoly of political power and public resources by such families affects the citizenry at the local and national levels. The socio-economic and political inequities prevalent in Philippine society limit public office to members of ruling families. In many instances, voters, for convenience and out of cultural mindset look up to these ruling families as dispensers of favours, and thus elect relatives of these politically dominant families. This bill was filed by Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago on January 24, 2011. Other bills on the same topic were also filed by then senator Alfredo Lim in 2004 (SB-1317), Senator Panfilo Lacson in 2007 (SB-1468), and Rep. Teddy Casino (House Bill-2493) also in 2007. Unfortunately, even though bills have been filed since the 8th Congress to have a law to stop the establishment of political dynasties, the Congress has failed to pass such a law. The reason for this continuous failure is that all levels of government, from municipal to national, are being controlled by politicians who are members of these politically powerful and wealthy families. Would you expect these politicians to shoot themselves by voting yes to a law that prohibits their family members to run for public office? You must be dreaming or maybe we are all dreaming. But this dream can turn into reality if we as the Filipino people strongly believe that this political control should be stopped once and for all. The state of our country is currently weak and vulnerable to all kinds of intrusions from people who want to advance their own personal interests. How could we eliminate or at least minimize political dynasties in the Philippines despite the absence of law? We, the Filipino people who are the

backbone of our society, must exercise our right of suffrage cognizant of the repercussion of our decisions. Let us use our minds and hearts in choosing a candidate and not be swayed by just their popularity, influence, control and buying-off. But, lets face the reality that not all Filipinos can have this mindset. Others have fears of consequences if they would go against the tide. Together however, we can unite and stand to push our Congress to pass a law that would protect our individual and national interests. If only corrective and preventive measures like the anti-political dynasty law could be passed and implemented, greediness and corruption could be minimized. Scarce public resources could be used for more efficient, productive, and effective programs and projects, more employment opportunities and income-generating projects could be available for the less fortunate, and our economy would start to build up and recover to where it was before or even surpass that level. Just for those who are curious, a 2007 GMA News Research showed that at least 76% of the legislators in the 14th Congress of the Philippines came from politically active families. Here are just 5 of these prominent and influential families: Binay Family (City of Makati) Jejomar Binay incumbent Vice-president of the Philippines, former Mayor of Makati City Jejomar Erwin Binay incumbent Mayor of Makati City, former city councillor, son ofJejomar Binay Abigail Binay incumbent representative of Makati City, daughter of Jejomar Binay Elenita Binay former Mayor of Makati City, wife of Jejomar Binay Ejercito-Estrada Family (City of San Juan) Joseph Estrada Former mayor of San Juan; former senator and vice president; 13thPresident of the Philippines Luisa Ejercito Estrada former first lady and senator; wife of Joseph Estrada Jinggoy Estrada current Senator; son of Joseph and Luisa Estrada

JV Ejercito former mayor and current congressman of San Juan; son of Joseph Estrada Emilio Ramon Ejercito III current governor of Laguna Province; former mayor ofPagsanjan, Laguna nephew of Joseph Estrada Girlie Ejercito incumbent mayor of Pagsanjan, Laguna; wife of Emilio Ejercito Gary Estrada current provincial board member of Quezon Province; nephew of Joseph Estrada Macapagal-Arroyo Family Jose Ma. Arroyo former Senator, grandfather of Jose Miguel Arroyo Jose Miguel Arroyo former First Gentleman of the Philippines; husband of former president, Gloria Arroyo Ignacio Arroyo Jr. current congressman of 5th District of Negros Occidental; brother of Jose Miguel Arroyo Diosdado Pangan Macapagal 9th President of the Philippines Cielo Macapagal-Salgado former provincial Vice Governor, daughter of DiosdadoMacapagal and elder sister of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, former President of the Philippines Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo 14th President of the Philippines, currently a congresswoman of Pampanga, daughter of Diosdado Macapagal Juan Miguel Macapagal Arroyo current congressman of 2nd District ofPampanga, son of Gloria and Jose Miguel Arroyo Diosdado Macapagal Arroyo congressman of Camarines Sur, son of Gloria and Jose Miguel Arroyo Marcos Family (Province of Ilocos Norte) Fabian Marcos appointed Mayor of Batac, Ilocos Norte during the American occupation

Mariano Marcos assemblyman; son of Fabian Marcos Ferdinand Marcos former Senator and Representative; 10th President of the Philippines; son of Mariano Marcos Imelda Marcos former First Lady of the Philippines, Governor of Manila, Minister of Human Settlements. Currently a Congresswoman; wife of Ferdinand Marcos Ferdinand Marcos Jr. former governor of Ilocos Norte, currently a senator; son of Ferdinand and Imelda Imee Marcos current governor of Ilocos Norte, daughter of Ferdinand andImelda Elizabeth Marcos-Keon former governor of Ilocos Norte, sister of FerdinandMarcos Villar-Aguilar Family (City of Las Pias) Filemon Aguilar former representative of Las Pias, father of Cynthia and Vergel Aguilar Vergel Aguilar incumbent Mayor of Las Pias City; brother of Cynthia Aguilar-Villar Imelda Aguilar former Mayor of Las Pias City; wife of Vergel Cynthia Aguilar-Villar representative of the Legislative District of Las Pias City during the 12tth, 13th and 14th Congress, wife of Manuel Villar Manuel Manny Villar currently a senator; representative of the Legislative District of LasPias City during the 11th Congress, Representative of Las Pias-Muntinlupa during the 9thand 10th Congress, husband of Cynthia Mark Villar current representative of the Legislative District of Las Pinas City; son of Manny and Cynthia Villar