De Lima: 'Good enough' if Cybercrime Law not struck down in entirety - GMA News

Justice Secretary Leila de Lima seemed fine with the prospect of the Supreme Court declaring portions of the controversial Cybercrime Prevention Act illegal, as long as the entire law is not struck down.

"Basta hindi ma-declare as unconstitutional iyong buong batas, maybe that will be good enough," De Lima told reporters on Monday.

De Lima refused to comment further on the controversial law, saying she would rather wait for the high court's ruling on it to come out.

De Lima's statement came a day before the high court is expected to disclose how it voted on the constitutionality of Republic Act 10175. It has been a year since the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the law.

Last week, SC Public Information Office chief and spokesperson Theodore Te told reporters at a media briefing that the SC was not yet "ready to release" the decision and that it would be made public this week.

Petitions were filed between September 24 and October 8, 2012 asking the court to declare the law—or at least parts of it—unconstitutional.

The petitioners wanted the high court to strike down provisions contained in Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, and 19. Sections 4 and 5 tackle the various offenses covered under the Cybercrime Act, including online libel, which the petitioners said violates the right to free speech.

Sections 6 and 7, meanwhile, impose a higher degree of punishment for people found guilty of libel while also allowing them to be charged separately under the Revised Penal Code for the same offense.

The petitioners said this violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.

The group also questioned Section 19, which authorizes the Justice department to restrict or block access to data that would be found prima facie in violation of the Cybercrime Law.

In October 2012, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing the government from implementing the law for 120 days. In February 2013, or a month after it held oral arguments on the issue, the high court extended the TRO idefinitely.

Last year, the DOJ announced that the online libel provision of the law was among the more unpopular provisions it had decided to exclude from an "enhanced" version of the much-derided la. The "enhanced" law also omits the portion that empowers the government to shut down websites suspected of violating the law.

The changes also include the deletion of provisions that pertain to child pornography and cybersquatting "because these are punishable under other laws already," Geronimo Sy, head of the Department f Justice Cybercrime Office, said then.

In 2012, media reports said the online libel provision was inserted in the bill that was to become law upon the suggestion of Senator Tito Sotto, who was then being pilloried on social media for alleged plagiarism. There were fears that even retweeting an offensive comment could land one in jail.

Online libel constitutional?

Although the court's decision has yet to be made public, a source revealed that the high court, voting 12-1-2, has declared Section 4(c)(4) of the law on "online libel" as constitutional.

That particular part of the law criminalizes libel, as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, when committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.

The only portions of the law so far struck down are: Section 4(c)(3) on unsolicited commercial communication, with the high court voting 11-2-2; and Section 5 (Other offenses).

As for Sections 7, 12, and 19, the high magistrates are still scheduled to vote on their legality during Tuesday's en banc session.

Apart from these, the Supreme Court declared the rest of the contested sections of the law constitutional, the source said.

Reached by GMA News Online, Te said he would rather not comment on the matter. — JDS, GMA News

Source: Top Stories - Google News