Philippines: Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 Introduction   On   12   September   2012,   Philippine   President   Benigno   Simeon   C.   Aquino   III   signed   into   law   Republic   Act   No.   10175   (the   Cybercrime   Prevention   Act).1   Although   the   law’s   stated   purpose   is   to   facilitate   the   prevention,   detection,   investigation   and   prosecution  of  criminal  acts  online,  and  the  law’s  proponents  claim  that  it  effectively   serves   to   extend   the   Philippines’   constitutional   protections   into   the   digital   realm,2   it   has   been   criticised   by   journalists   and   civil   society   organisations   who   claim   that   it   violates   freedom   of   expression.   In   the   days   following   its   passage,   fifteen   separate   petitions  were  filed  in  the  High  Court  challenging  fourteen  of  the  law’s  provisions.3   As   a   result,   the   Supreme   Court   has   suspended   implementation   of   the   Cybercrime   Prevention  Act  for  120  days,  in  order  to  allow  the  challenges  to  proceed.     The   emergence   of   the   online   world   has   created   enormous   opportunities,   in   terms   of   economic   growth   and   due   to   the   Internet’s   expanding   role   as   a   vital   delivery   mechanism   for   human   rights,   particularly   freedom   of   expression.4   By   the   same   token,   it   has   given   rise   to   a   range   of   challenges   from   a   legal   and   regulatory   perspective.   Governments   seeking   to   regulate   the   Internet   need   to   find   an   appropriate   balance   between   addressing   legitimate   security   and   other   legal   concerns,   and   respecting   freedom   of   expression   online   and   safeguarding   the   qualities   of   the   Internet   that   make   it   such   a   valuable   medium.   An   overly   heavy-­‐ handed   approach   to   online   regulation   can   breach   human   rights   and   threaten   the   Internet’s  usefulness  and  character,  both  domestically  and  internationally.       This   Analysis   considers   the   Cybercrime   Prevention   Act   from   the   perspective   of   international   guarantees   of   freedom   of   expression.   It   discusses   the   major   areas   where   this   law   violates   international   human   rights   standards,   and   makes   recommendations   as   to   how   to   avoid   these   problems   while   still   delivering   the   desired  benefits.     1. Key Freedom of Expression Standards   1  Available  at:  http://www.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-­‐act-­‐no-­‐10175/.   2   Marvin   Sy,   “'Give   Cybercrime   Prevention   Act   a   chance'”,  The   Philippine   Star,   23   September   2012.   Available  at:   http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=851856&publicationSubCategoryId=63.   3   Tetch   Torres,   “SC   issues   TRO   vs   cyber   law”,   Inquirer   News,   9   October   2012.   Available   at:   http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/285848/sc-­‐stops-­‐cyber-­‐law.   4   For   a   broader   discussion   of   the   Internet   and   human   rights   see:   Centre   for   Law   and   Democracy,   A   Truly  World-­‐Wide  Web:  Assessing  the  Internet  from  the  Perspective  of  Human  Rights  (Halifax:  Centre   for  Law  and  Democracy,  2012).  Available  at:   http://www.law-­‐democracy.org/wp-­‐content/uploads/2010/07/final-­‐Internet.pdf.   The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy -1-