Can We Live Without RA10175 for Another 120 Days?

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

Libel Clause in RA 10175

According to Senator Tito Sotto, the insertion of the libel clause in the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 or RA 10175 was meant to protect netizens from being victimized by malicious postings as what happened with Katrina Halili and Maricar Reyes.  In this case, then I'm in agreement with the good senator.  However, like vintage Sotto style, the insertion was nothing more than a "copy and paste" of what is already under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, which defined libel "as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to discredit or cause the dishonor or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead."  The only thing new hear was the hefty penalty imposed as part of the insertion.

It is truly disturbing to note the level of mediocrity on the part of our law makers to properly define the laws that they pass.  Manong namang magisip-isip naman sana!  No wonder there are a lot of loopholes that unscrupulous individuals tend to abuse.