With the Supreme Court's decision to put a TRO with regard to the controversial Anti-Cybercrime Act of 2012, it would mean that the implementation of this law is put on hold for 120 days. So, can we live without it for the next couple of days? I do believe the answer would be, YES. This is particularly true in terms of child pornography and abuse against women.
Even before the Cybercrime Law was thought of, Republic Act 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 was already in place. This law not only protects a child, defined as anyone 17 years old and below, from sexual physical abuse but also encompasses the production of pornographic materials of any form. On the other hand there is also Republic Act 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 which can be used to prosecute individuals who uploads humiliating videos on the internet as in the case of Hayden Kho. As the good Senator Sotto mentioned in an interview, he inserted the cyber libel stipulation in the pretense of protecting individuals from the spread of scandalous materials in the internet. Unfortunately, he attributed this act to a vague law subject to abuse by unscrupulous and opportunistic individuals.
Personally, the problem with some of our law makers is that they make all this laws for the sake of making one. It would be good practice to evaluate our laws for loopholes so that the necessary plugs are put in place and not become a grey area where criminals thread.
Reference
http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2009/ra_9775_2009.html
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/research/Philippines/RA20926220-20Law20Against20Violence20Against20Women20and20Their20Children.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment