Restraining order on cybercrime law’s implementation lifted

Protesters unfurl a streamer signifying their sentiment against Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act as they gather in front of the Supreme Court in Manila. (INQUIRER)

The Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutionality of Internet libel and majority of the provisions of Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act. 

SC spokesman Theodore Te said internet libel is constitutional when it comes to the original author of the material but it cannot be enforced to those who receive and react to the post.

“The Court also ruled on the constitutionality of online libel when it further declared that Section 4(c)(4) which penalizes online libel is not unconstitutional with respect to the original author of the post but unconstitutional only where it penalizes those who simply receive the post or react to it,” Te said at a press conference yesterday.

Other provisions declared as unconstitutional either wholly or contextually are the following:
Sec. 4(c)(3) (Unsolicited Commercial Communications)
Sec. 12 (Real time collection of traffic data)
Sec. 19 (Restricting or blocking access to computer data)
Sec. 5 (aiding or abetting in the commission of a cybercrime/attempt to commit a cybercrime) only in relation to secs. 4(c)(2) (child pornography), 4(c)(3) (unsolicited commercial communications) and 4(c)(4) (libel)
Sec. 7 which provides that apart from prosecution under the law, they can also be prosecuted for same offenses under the Revised Penal Code is unconstitutional only in relation to secs. 4(c)(4) (libel) and 4(c)(2) (child pornography).

A total of 15 petitions have been filed in 2012 questioning the legality of the law. A 120-day restraining order has been issued against its implementation.

Te said with the high court’s ruling, the restraining order is deemed lifted.