SY 2012-2013, Second Semester
TMI. Too Much Information. When is much too much? In our daily transactions or activities how do we know if we were able to give too much information about ourselves. On facebook, twitter, tumbler, blogs, and other social networks and even on jobstreet, online shopping, on ebay, itunes, or online booking, etc. what information should we divulge and which one should we just keep in ourselves? How are we protected while having the online transactions?
I’ll answer the abovementioned questions through another set of questions, do we really have this right to privacy? Is it constitutionally guaranteed? Are there laws in relation to this right?
The words “right to privacy” per se was not prima facie written in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. However the landmark case of Ople vs. Torres  the Court said that there is indeed a right to privacy, it is the right to be let alone. In addition to that, in the case of Morfe vs. Mutuc  the Court also said that there is a right to privacy. Our 1987 Constitution might not provide for the words “right to privacy” but it was expressly recognized and cited under Article III or the Bill of rights on the following sections:
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
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.
“Sec. 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.”
Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
As herein stated, the right to privacy is without a doubt guaranteed by our Constitution. Privacy is the quality or condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others. It is the state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion.  It is an important part of our lives and without such privacy, there will be no peace. Everyone has the right to enjoy this constitutional guarantee to be able to enjoy life.
Due to new technological advances, this privacy can easily be taken away from a person especially to the people using the internet.
Through the internet we can share many things, from the food we eat, random thoughts in our minds, to the most important personal aspects of our lives. It is hard to ask for privacy when you are the one who freely gave the information found on your social network sites. So in case our right is being impaired, what could be our remedy?
The Congress enacted the “Data Privacy Act of 2012”. This law was enacted in accordance with the policy of the State to protect the fundamental human right of privacy, of communication while ensuring free flow of information to promote innovation and growth. The State recognizes the vital role of information and communications technology in nation-building and its inherent obligation to ensure that personal information in information and communications systems in the government and in the private sector are secured and protected. 
So, how will this law really affect us? Will this help and protect us?
Let me discuss some of the provisions of the said law which I think would affect my life/ our lives intimately.
“Sec3 (b) Consent of the data subject refers to any freely given, specific, informed indication of will, whereby the data subject agrees to the collection and processing of personal information about and/or relating to him or her. Consent shall be evidenced by written, electronic or recorded means. It may also be given on behalf of the data subject by an agent specifically authorized by the data subject to do so.
(c) Data subject refers to an individual whose personal information is processed.”
By signing up to different social networking sites, or when we give our credit card information when shopping online, or when booking for an airline ticket over the phone, or by simply ordering foods at a fast food chain for delivery, we as the data subject are giving the consent or freely agrees to the collection and processing of personal information about us.
Sec3 (g) Personal information refers to any information whether recorded in a material form or not, from which the identity of an individual is apparent or can be reasonably and directly ascertained by the entity holding the information, or when put together with other information would directly and certainly identify an individual.
Personal information, I think are those that can be seen on our account. Our profile page on facebook, our tweets on twitter, pictures on istagram or anything we do whether recorded in a material form or not like when our acts are recorded on a video/ our conversations on a voice recorder.
“(h) Personal information controller refers to a person or organization who controls the collection, holding, processing or use of personal information, including a person or organization who instructs another person or organization to collect, hold, process, use, transfer or disclose personal information on his or her behalf. The term excludes:
(1) A person or organization who performs such functions as instructed by another person or organization; and
(2) An individual who collects, holds, processes or uses personal information in connection with the individual’s personal, family or household affairs.”
Personal information controller may include airline companies (when we make our bookings), banks, hotels, all the sites where we put our personal information to and etc.
(l) Sensitive personal information refers to personal information:
(1) About an individual’s race, ethnic origin, marital status, age, color, and religious, philosophical or political affiliations;
(2) About an individual’s health, education, genetic or sexual life of a person, or to any proceeding for any offense committed or alleged to have been committed by such person, the disposal of such proceedings, or the sentence of any court in such proceedings;
(3) Issued by government agencies peculiar to an individual which includes, but not limited to, social security numbers, previous or cm-rent health records, licenses or its denials, suspension or revocation, and tax returns; and
(4) Specifically established by an executive order or an act of Congress to be kept classified.
Obviously these are information that cannot be divulge without the consent of the data subject. They are too personal and when disclosed might greatly affect the person’s life. Let’s take genetic or sexual life of a person, of course information like this must be protected or else will ruin someone else’s life. Those sex video, nude photo, etc taken without the consent of the data subject is clearly dangerous, degrading and injurious.
Those information we put on application forms and other requirements in applying to SSS (Social Security System), PHILhealth, etc must be kept private if not our lives will be in jeopardy. Imagine if a stranger with bad intention would know those information, it will be easier for him to accomplish and execute his evil intent.
The herein stated sensitive personal information is very important to be protected because as abovestated, it will be an easy access to perpetrating evil intents.
Moreover, this law is seen to be beneficial in Information Technology (IT) and Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) industry by making it in line with International Standards of Privacy protection will benefit the most. 
We must also be aware of the scope of this law so that we will know up to what extent we can seek relief from it.
SEC. 4. Scope. – This Act applies to the processing of all types of personal information and to any natural and juridical person involved in personal information processing including those personal information controllers and processors who, although not found or established 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 the immediately succeeding paragraph: Provided, That the requirements of Section 5 are complied with.
This Act does not apply to the following:
(a) Information about any individual who is or was an officer or employee of a government institution that relates to the position or functions of the individual, including:
(1) The fact that the individual is or was an officer or employee of the government institution;
(2) The title, business address and office telephone number of the individual;
(3) The classification, salary range and responsibilities of the position held by the individual; and
(4) The name of the individual on a document prepared by the individual in the course of employment with the government;
(b) Information about an individual who is or was performing service under contract for a government institution that relates to the services performed, including the terms of the contract, and the name of the individual given in the course of the performance of those services;
(c) Information relating to any discretionary benefit of a financial nature such as the granting of a license or permit given by the government to an individual, including the name of the individual and the exact nature of the benefit;
(d) Personal information processed for journalistic, artistic, literary or research purposes;
(e) Information necessary in order to carry out the functions of public authority which includes the processing of personal data for the performance by the independent, central monetary authority and law enforcement and regulatory agencies of their constitutionally and statutorily mandated functions. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as to have amended or repealed Republic Act No. 1405, otherwise known as the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act; Republic Act No. 6426, otherwise known as the Foreign Currency Deposit Act; and Republic Act No. 9510, otherwise known as the Credit Information System Act (CISA);
(f) Information necessary for banks and other financial institutions under the jurisdiction of the independent, central monetary authority or Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas to comply with Republic Act No. 9510, and Republic Act No. 9160, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Money Laundering Act and other applicable laws; and
(g) Personal information originally collected from residents of foreign jurisdictions in accordance with the laws of those foreign jurisdictions, including any applicable data privacy laws, which is being processed in the Philippines.
Of course the penalties in committing acts in violation of this law is also important for us to know,
SEC. 25. Unauthorized Processing of Personal Information and Sensitive Personal Information. – (a) The unauthorized processing of personal information 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 process personal information without the consent of the data subject, or without being authorized under this Act or any existing law.
(b) The unauthorized processing of personal sensitive information 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 process personal information without the consent of the data subject, or without being authorized under this Act or any existing law.
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.
SEC. 27. Improper Disposal of Personal Information and Sensitive Personal Information. – (a) The improper disposal of personal information shall be penalized by imprisonment ranging from six (6) months to two (2) years and a fine of not less than One hundred thousand pesos (Php100,000.00) but not more than Five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00) shall be imposed on persons who knowingly or negligently dispose, discard or abandon the personal information of an individual in an area accessible to the public or has otherwise placed the personal information of an individual in its container for trash collection.
b) The improper disposal of sensitive personal information shall be penalized by imprisonment ranging from one (1) year to three (3) years and a fine of not less than One hundred thousand pesos (Php100,000.00) but not more than One million pesos (Php1,000,000.00) shall be imposed on persons who knowingly or negligently dispose, discard or abandon the personal information of an individual in an area accessible to the public or has otherwise placed the personal information of an individual in its container for trash collection.
SEC. 28. Processing of Personal Information and Sensitive Personal Information for Unauthorized Purposes. – The processing of personal information for unauthorized purposes shall be penalized by imprisonment ranging from one (1) year and six (6) months to five (5) years and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00) but not more than One million pesos (Php1,000,000.00) shall be imposed on persons processing personal information for purposes not authorized by the data subject, or otherwise authorized under this Act or under existing laws.
The processing of sensitive personal information for unauthorized purposes shall be penalized by imprisonment ranging from two (2) years to seven (7) 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 processing sensitive personal information for purposes not authorized by the data subject, or otherwise authorized under this Act or under existing laws.
SEC. 29. Unauthorized Access or Intentional Breach. – The penalty of 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 knowingly and unlawfully, or violating data confidentiality and security data systems, breaks in any way into any system where personal and sensitive personal information is stored.
SEC. 30. Concealment of Security Breaches Involving Sensitive Personal Information. – The penalty of imprisonment of one (1) year and six (6) months to five (5) years and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00) but not more than One million pesos (Php1,000,000.00) shall be imposed on persons who, after having knowledge of a security breach and of the obligation to notify the Commission pursuant to Section 20(f), intentionally or by omission conceals the fact of such security breach.
SEC. 31. Malicious Disclosure. – Any personal information controller or personal information processor or any of its officials, employees or agents, who, with malice or in bad faith, discloses unwarranted or false information relative to any personal information or personal sensitive information obtained by him or her, shall be subject to imprisonment ranging from one (1) year and six (6) months to five (5) years and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00) but not more than One million pesos (Php1,000,000.00).
SEC. 32. Unauthorized Disclosure. – (a) Any personal information controller or personal information processor or any of its officials, employees or agents, who discloses to a third party personal information not covered by the immediately preceding section without the consent of the data subject, shall he subject to 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 One million pesos (Php1,000,000.00).
(b) Any personal information controller or personal information processor or any of its officials, employees or agents, who discloses to a third party sensitive personal information not covered by the immediately preceding section without the consent of the data subject, shall be subject to imprisonment ranging from three (3) years to five (5) 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).
SEC. 33. Combination or Series of Acts. – Any combination or series of acts as defined in Sections 25 to 32 shall make the person subject to imprisonment ranging from three (3) years to six (6) years and a fine of not less than One million pesos (Php1,000,000.00) but not more than Five million pesos (Php5,000,000.00).
SEC. 34. Extent of Liability. – If the offender is a corporation, partnership or any juridical person, the penalty shall be imposed upon the responsible officers, as the case may be, who participated in, or by their gross negligence, allowed the commission of the crime. If the offender is a juridical person, the court may suspend or revoke any of its rights under this Act. If the offender is an alien, he or she shall, in addition to the penalties herein prescribed, be deported without further proceedings after serving the penalties prescribed. If the offender is a public official or employee and lie or she is found guilty of acts penalized under Sections 27 and 28 of this Act, he or she shall, in addition to the penalties prescribed herein, suffer perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification from office, as the case may be.
SEC. 35. Large-Scale. – The maximum penalty in the scale of penalties respectively provided for the preceding offenses shall be imposed when the personal information of at least one hundred (100) persons is harmed, affected or involved as the result of the above mentioned actions.
SEC. 36. Offense Committed by Public Officer. – When the offender or the person responsible for the offense is a public officer as defined in the Administrative Code of the Philippines in the exercise of his or her duties, an accessory penalty consisting in the disqualification to occupy public office for a term double the term of criminal penalty imposed shall he applied.
SEC. 37. Restitution. – Restitution for any aggrieved party shall be governed by the provisions of the New Civil Code.
So, when is much too much? We must always be careful in our acts because we will never know when someone is taking pictures or video of them. We must also be careful in giving out personal information because once given, we cannot control the events that may make it known to all. True we have this Data Privacy Law. We can be protected. But as the cliche would say, prevention is better than cure. Let’s not be too generous and give TOO MUCH INFORMATION.
 Ople vs. Torres July 23, 1998 GR no. 127685
 Morfe v. Mutuc, 22 SCRA 424
 Republic Act 10173,”The Data Privacy Act” Section2- Declaration of Policy
In this modern time and age, there are more or less 300,000,000 Filipinos using the internet. Almost all of us have different accounts on different social networking sites. Most of us uses the internet everyday and dependent on it. That being AFK is hard and we wanted to go back every now and then. It’s like having an internet connection is a necessity. That when it’s down, the human being also feels down. Every one using it has their purpose, some for leisure, some for work, for research, etc.
Because of the growing population of Filipino netizens, such internet usage can be subject to abuse. I myself was a victim of hacking which made my yahoo! account inaccessible. It was really hard because I don’t know how to recover my important documents saved on that account. And it has been said that people (but not all) will just give concern or interest on something until they themselves was being affected by it. Since many are already using the internet, like me, we are now concern on how to protect ourselves from the not so good effects of using one, which includes cybercrimes.
Our legislators made a law to help us in giving solutions to our cyber-related problems. The Cybercrime law was enacted. Among the cybercrime offenses included in the law are cybersquatting, cybersex, child pornography, identity theft, illegal access to data and libel. But the passing of the said law gave rise to different protests.
After the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 came into effect on 3 October 2011, six days later, after Filipinos made #NoToCyberCrimeLaw trend on Twitter, turned their profile pictures on Facebook and Twitter black in protest, and submitted 15 separate petitions to the Supreme Court questioning the law’s constitutionality, the Supreme Court suspended its implementation – for 120 days. 
Here are some of the provisions of the said law and the reasons why people reacted negatively form it:
Section 4( c ) (4)- on online libel which violates the freedom of expression and gives the government too much power over the internet users.
Section 6- it adopts the entire penal code, if the crime is committed by the use of information technology, but the penalty shall be one degree higher. It results to a discrimination against online crimes.
Section12- on the Real Time Collection of Traffic Data  , as it violates the right to privacy.
Section 19- Restricting or blocking access to computer data or the “take-down clause” as it violates the right to due process.
Due to the said loopholes of the cybercrime law, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago urged the Senate to pass a bill she filed calling it the “anti-cybercrime law version 2.0”. This bill is the latest among efforts of lawmakers to correct the law. And for me, this one is BETTER than the Cybercrime law.
The Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom is better because it improves and clarifies the ambiguities of the Cybercrime laws. Here are some of the provisions of the bill which will fill in to the loopholes of the law:
To answer for the ambiguity of Section 4( c ) (4) of Cybercrime law- on online libel, Section 33 provides for the internet libel, hate speech, child pornography and other expression inimical to the public interest.
“The [Magna Carta] does not suffer from overbreadth and vagueness in its provisions on libel, unlike the law it tries to replace. In fact, it treats libel as a civil liability rather than a criminal act, which is a step forward in the move to decriminalize libel,” Senator Santiago said. 
The Magna Carta also provides for the exceptions to internet libel.  As compared to the Cybercrime law which merely stated that libel, on whatever acts and form will be punishable, thus depriving the people of their freedom of expression.
Section 33 specifies acts when a person could be held liable for online libel, hate speech, child pornography and other expressions making it not broad as what Cybercrime law suffers with.
Thus, the critics of politicians and celebrities will fear no more for possible harassments because of the vague and broad application of cybercrime law on online libel.
To address to Section 6 of R.A 10175 which adopts the whole Revised Penal Code. Chapter 8 of the Magna Carta provides for the specific penalties for different offenses thus moving away from the discriminatory penalties on online crimes. Section 35 also provides that nomenclature of book 1 of the Revised Penal Code should apply suppletorily only to the provisons of this Act.
There is no all-encompassing provision anymore on the Magna Carta as it specifies which among the crimes stated in the RPC will be considered as a crime under this Act.
On Section 12 of Cybercrime law, which allows the warrantless real-time of traffic data violates the right to due process and the Constitutional guarantee against illegal search and seizure. This was however, remedied by the Magna Carta, by providing strict guidelines for any collection of any data, including the securing of warrants, obligating notification, and limiting seizure to data and excluding physical property. 
The Magna Carta does not have the “take-down clause” which provides that when a computer data is prima facie found to be in violation of the provision of Cybercrime Law,the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer data. By a prima facie, on its face, or “simpleng hinala observation, the authorities can issue such order to restrict or block access. This is in violation of the right to due process. On the other hand, the said bill proposed by Senator Santiago requires for court proceedings in cases where websites or networks are to be taken down, and prohibits censorship of content without a court order. This may be more time consuming, but this is better than to deprive a person which might be an innocent one on his right to due process.
On double jeopardy- The senator said the Magna Carta prohibits double jeopardy, unlike the Cybercrime Prevention Act.
She said under the Act, people can be prosecuted for violations against it, and for those under the Revised Penal Code and special laws even though the offenses are from a single act. 
S.B. No 3327 also seeks to clarify the mandate and organization of the proposed Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT), the creation of which is currently pending before Congress.
“Because of the broad range of responsibilities related to the enforcement of laws governing ICT, a department-level office should be established and its functions and jurisdiction should be clear-cut,” Senator Miriam said.
The Magna Carta prepares the proposed DICT, law enforcement agencies, and the military with provisions for handling cybercrimes. Section 47 of the bill provides amendments to the AFP Modernization Act to ensure the country has weapons and defenses against cyberattacks by terrorists, violent non-state actors, and rogue or enemy nation-states. The bill’s Section 48, on the other hand, mandates the Philippine National Police and the National Bureau of Investigation to combat cyberterrorism. 
Child abuse and human trafficking  committed through the internet are also being punished under the said bill which is not present in RA 10175.
It also has amendments to the AFP Modernization Act to ensure the country has weapons and defenses against cyberattacks.
The Magna Carta also has a comprehensive provision on mandating the police and the National Bureau of Investigation to combat cyberterrorism .
Senator Santiago’s bill also enables the country to harness ICT for national development by ensuring government agencies are keeping up with the realities of and advances in information technology, such as those involving consumer welfare and copyright laws. 
Senator Santiago says the country needs a more effective cyberlaw because information and communications technology (ICT) and the Internet are drivers of economic growth. According to a 2012 report by the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), the business process outsourcing (BPO) industry, the information technology outsourcing (ITO) industry, and other outsourcing industries, also known as knowledge worker industries, which are strongly dependent on fast and reliable ICT and Internet networks, have contributed USD 11B in export revenues, or an estimated 5.4% contribution to the gross domestic product (GDP) of the Philippines in 2011.
If passed into law, S.B. No. 3327 will be the first law to be created through “crowdsourcing.” Crowdsourcing is an online process of getting work done by tapping people on the Internet who volunteer their talent and skills.
According to Santiago, a group of concerned netizens–composed of software designers, IT specialists, academics, bloggers, engineers, lawyers, human rights advocates–approached her office with a draft of the MCPIF. The group formulated the MCPIF through discussions in an open Facebook group, email, Google Hangout teleconferences, and social media channels like Twitter.
I like the this law was drafted by concerned citizens, helping each other, open for everyone and was able to exchange ideas so as to meet the demands and needs of the netizens. The way the Magna Carta was drafted, as I was able to read from http://www.propinoy.net/2012/11/26/crowdsourcing-the-story-of-the-drafting-of-the-magna-carta-for-philippine-internet-freedom/ was not easy. The fact that people has spoken, concerned private citizens gave their opinions through the social networking site is a good start. Of course a legislator is needed for the said draft to be passed as a bill, and looking for one which is willing to help develop the law is hard. But nevertheless they were able to convince Senator Santiago and her staff to help them in filing the bill.
This Magna Carta for Internet Freedom is better than the Cybercrime law by reasons stated above. For me, aside from those reason, the Magna Carta is better because we can simultaneously make cyber criminals liable while protecting the rights of the people. It is a win win situation if you’re not a cyber criminal. The cyberspace will be a better place for there will be a rule that will give limitations to the abused power of the netizens.
Before, I don’t believe that any Cybercrime law can be successful in attaining its objective because the law might be hard to execute. For what if the offender is an untraceable netizen? This is why people commits cybercrime, because it is easy for them to just hide their identity and change locations so that the IP address would vary. But provisions on its execution was provided for by the bill. And according to Atty. Disini, an Internet law expert, since 2000 the NBI was engaged on trainings that will can help them execute cybercrime law effectively. It also has been said, as an evidence of the result if the training, that the person who posted the Hayden Kho videos was traced by them. So I just have to trust the law enforcers that they will do their job. Albert Einstein once said that, “Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler.” The Magna Carta provided for procedures, and the law enforcers should execute it according to the best of their ability.
We are in need of a cybercrime law but we, as individual netizens should also do our part. We have the right to enjoy our freedom of expression and all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. But with this right, we must also know our limits. We must all be a responsible citizen. We can write whatever we want but we must not enjoy such right as to injure other people. We must post things, tweets, blogs, picture that will not damage other people and even yourself.
B. F. Skinner on Contingencies of Reinforcement, said that “The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men do.” The use of the internet might give rise to cybercrimes. As what I have learned from my grade 4 teacher, it was said that “the computer will not think for you”. It is still the human beings who provides for information or data in the computer. If people will not use their intelligence in using the internet for valuable purposes, the internet will just follow, it cannot stop the people from abusing one.
The Temporary Restraining order or the suspension of the Cybercrime law will lapse on January 28. After this, the lawyers that were tasked to represent the anti-cybercrime groups during the oral arguments will have their mock session. Each counsel will have a maximum of 10 minutes to present his arguments. It will be followed by the SC Justices’ interpellation. Then the government’s side, through the Solicitor-General, will present its side on the Cybercrime Law on January 22. And After both parties make their arguments, they will submit their respective memorandum to the High Court. Ideally, the High Tribunal should render its decision after the memoranda have been submitted. 
The Magna Carta sets for the limits on how far we can enjoy the use of the internet. The things that we used to do freely, might soon be punishable. Moreover, are we going to allow RA 10175 to make us Away From Keyboard? I doubt it. Let’s fight! And support the Magna Carta for Internet Freedom.
 Section 12 Real-Time Collection of Traffice Data- Law enforcement authorities, with due case, shall be authorized 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.
 AA. Exceptions to internet libel. – The following acts shall not constitute internet libel:
a) Expressions of protest against the government, or against foreign governments;
b) Expressions of dissatisfaction with the government, its agencies or instrumentalities, or its officials or agents, or with those of foreign governments;
c) Expressions of dissatisfaction with non-government organizations, unions, associations, political parties, religious groups, and public figures;
d) Expressions of dissatisfaction with the products or services of commercial entities;
e) Expressions of dissatisfaction with commercial entities, or their officers or agents, as related to the products or services that the commercial entities provide;
f) Expressions of a commercial entity that are designed to discredit the products or services of a competitor, even if the competitor is explicitly identified;
g) An expression made with the intention of remaining private between persons able to access or view the expression, even ifthe expression is later released to the public; and,
h) A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings, 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, or of any matter of public interest.
 Section 33. Internet Libel, Hate Speech, Child Pornography, and Other Expressio Inimical to the Public Interest
– C.4. Internet child abuse. – The performance of acts prohibited by Section 9 of the
Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, as amended,
by means of a device, storage medium, network equipment, or physical plant connected to theInternet or to telecommunications networks shall be deemed unlawful.
 Section 34. Sabotage of critical networks and infrastructure, and other acts ofcyberterrorism.