MANILA, Philippines - In an article written by Sen. Teofisto 'TG' Guingona III on the Rappler website entitled “Cybercrime law: Demonizing technology”, he strongly states that the “Republic Act 10175 is oppressive and dangerous.” RA10175, also called the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, is the latest “cyber law” that pushes legal actions against unpleasant online interaction. Though, the Senator clearly pointed out that we need a Cybercrime Prevention Act, he still disapproved the libel provisions of the law.
Guingona used three words to describe RA10175: vague, unfair, and oppressive. In vague, it is stated that since there is no clear definition of the people who are liable in making such cyber crimes, the practice of freedom and democracy for anyone is not envisioned in the law as anyone can be charged as long as there is enough proof of criticism. In this part of his article, Guingona used the provisions of the cybercrime act to show the imprecision of it. His argument proves to be correct as there was never anything mentioned regarding who can be held liable in such unpleasant acts. The vagueness is evident as to see nothing in an article means there is nothing to defend.
Calling it unfair, the senator also stated that RA10175 has a weightier punishment of up to 12 years imprisonment if proven guilty while the traditional libel act gets a mere four years and two months of jail years. In this statement, the validity lies to the facts of the laws involved. The traditional libel law has been active for many years now; therefore it is true that if proven guilty, one can be locked in for up to four years in jail. Seeing that the provisions of the new online libel law may take up to 12 years, it is unacceptable to state that it is unfair. First, it is not safe to compare an old law that has been in practiced for years now to a one that is still being reviewed by the lawmakers themselves as changes may still occur. Second, if ever the new law is already in effect, the extent of damage one can make by doing such libelous crime online is larger and bigger due to the fact that almost everyone has access to the internet, therefore the information (regardless of its accuracy) can easily spread out.
Guingona also noticed that double jeopardy is to anyone who is found accountable for cybercrime damages, both libel under the Revised Penal Code, and one under the Cybercrime Prevention Act. Oppressive is how he called it, the senator briefly stated the fact that one can be charged twice under two different accounts, but what is missing in this defense is the appeal of why and how it could happen The new law states that it can happen but the lack of education to the reason as to on which possible mistake is missing. The statement, though valid and correct, still can be misleading.
The senator stated in the last part of his article that he is not against to the whole of the RA10157 law, but to some of the provisions of it (the provisions stated above). It is therefore suggested that he would like to keep that law with exceptions, as for him, it is a good one but contaminated with unreasonable provisions. Although, the article is missing points as to why he still would like to keep the law as there would still be important points to it, it still won’t matter as the purpose of writing the article was to not to promote it, but to see why people should be worried about it. As a whole, all arguments given by the Senator are logical as most of his evidences are derived from the law themselves. A law state what it states, therefore, it is a clear that it cannot be disapproved or changed it by anyone who just likes so.
The arguments written in the article are good enough to hold any counter argument. Like what I have already mentioned, all the facts were taken from the laws and the drafts of them; therefore it is hard to disprove them. The only challenge the writer could face would be the information as to why and how (or even what) regarding his facts needs more explanation or further evaluation. Even so, I strongly agree with most of the points Guingona have given. Basing all my judgment on the facts given, RA10175 is a good law that needs to be revised to a level that is appropriate and reasonable as we are a country of democracy and freedom.
 |
| © Johneubanks Stock Free Images |
Calling it unfair, the senator also stated that RA10175 has a weightier punishment of up to 12 years imprisonment if proven guilty while the traditional libel act gets a mere four years and two months of jail years. In this statement, the validity lies to the facts of the laws involved. The traditional libel law has been active for many years now; therefore it is true that if proven guilty, one can be locked in for up to four years in jail. Seeing that the provisions of the new online libel law may take up to 12 years, it is unacceptable to state that it is unfair. First, it is not safe to compare an old law that has been in practiced for years now to a one that is still being reviewed by the lawmakers themselves as changes may still occur. Second, if ever the new law is already in effect, the extent of damage one can make by doing such libelous crime online is larger and bigger due to the fact that almost everyone has access to the internet, therefore the information (regardless of its accuracy) can easily spread out.
Guingona also noticed that double jeopardy is to anyone who is found accountable for cybercrime damages, both libel under the Revised Penal Code, and one under the Cybercrime Prevention Act. Oppressive is how he called it, the senator briefly stated the fact that one can be charged twice under two different accounts, but what is missing in this defense is the appeal of why and how it could happen The new law states that it can happen but the lack of education to the reason as to on which possible mistake is missing. The statement, though valid and correct, still can be misleading.
The senator stated in the last part of his article that he is not against to the whole of the RA10157 law, but to some of the provisions of it (the provisions stated above). It is therefore suggested that he would like to keep that law with exceptions, as for him, it is a good one but contaminated with unreasonable provisions. Although, the article is missing points as to why he still would like to keep the law as there would still be important points to it, it still won’t matter as the purpose of writing the article was to not to promote it, but to see why people should be worried about it. As a whole, all arguments given by the Senator are logical as most of his evidences are derived from the law themselves. A law state what it states, therefore, it is a clear that it cannot be disapproved or changed it by anyone who just likes so.
The arguments written in the article are good enough to hold any counter argument. Like what I have already mentioned, all the facts were taken from the laws and the drafts of them; therefore it is hard to disprove them. The only challenge the writer could face would be the information as to why and how (or even what) regarding his facts needs more explanation or further evaluation. Even so, I strongly agree with most of the points Guingona have given. Basing all my judgment on the facts given, RA10175 is a good law that needs to be revised to a level that is appropriate and reasonable as we are a country of democracy and freedom.
Reference:
Guingona , Sen. Teofisto. "Cybercrime law: Demonizing technology." Rappler. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2012. http://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/13041-gagging-the-computer-user-cyber-libel-the-right-way-to-go.
Call Me Jed™ (cc) 2013. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Philippines License.
Call Me Jed™ (cc) 2013. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Philippines License.