Philippines: Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 Freedom  of  expression  is  recognised  as  a  fundamental  human  right.  It  is  protected   under   Article   19   of   the   Universal   Declaration   of   Human   Rights   (UDHR),5   a   UN   General  Assembly  resolution,  which  states:     Everyone   has   the   right   to   freedom   of   opinion   and   expression;   this   right   includes   the   right  to  hold  opinions  without  interference  and  to  seek,  receive  and  impart  informa-­‐ tion  and  ideas  through  any  media  regardless  of  frontiers.     Freedom  of  expression  is  also  protected  in  Article  19  of  the  International  Covenant   on  Civil  and  Political  Rights  (ICCPR),6  which  the  Philippines  ratified  in  October  1986:     1.  Everyone  shall  have  the  right  to  hold  opinions  without  interference.       2.   Everyone   shall   have   the   right   to   freedom   of   expression;   this   right   shall   include   freedom  to  seek,  receive  and  impart  information  and  ideas  of  all  kinds,  regardless  of   frontiers,  either  orally,  in  writing  or  in  print,  in  the  form  of  art,  or  through  any  other   media  of  his  choice.       3.  The  exercise  of  the  rights  provided  for  in  paragraph  2  of  this  article  carries  with  it   special  duties  and  responsibilities.  It  may  therefore  be  subject  to  certain  restrictions,   but  these  shall  only  be  such  as  are  provided  by  law  and  are  necessary:     (a)  For  respect  of  the  rights  or  reputations  of  others;     (b)  For  the  protection  of  national  security  or  of  public  order  (ordre  public),  or   of  public  health  or  morals.     This   imposes   a   strict   three-­‐part   test   for   restrictions.   In   its   most   recent   General   Comment   on   Article   19   of   the   ICCPR,   adopted   in   September   2009,   the   UN   Human   Rights  Committee  stated:     Paragraph   3   lays   down   specific   conditions   and   it   is   only   subject   to   these   conditions   that   restrictions   may   be   imposed:   the   restrictions   must   be   “provided   by   law”;   they   may  only  be  imposed  for  one  of  the  grounds  set  out  in  subparagraphs  (a)  and  (b)  of   paragraph   3;   and   they   must   conform   to   the   strict   tests   of   necessity   and   proportionality.  [references  omitted]7     First,   the   restriction   must   be   provided   by   law   or   imposed   in   conformity   with   the   law.  This  implies  not  only  that  the  restriction  is  based  on  a  legal  provision,  but  also   that  the  law  meets  certain  standards  of  clarity  and  accessibility.  Where  restrictions   are   vaguely   drafted,   they   may   be   interpreted   in   a   way   that   gives   them   a   range   of   different   meanings.   This   gives   the   authorities   the   discretion   to   apply   them   in   situations   which   bear   no   relation   to   the   original   purpose   of   the   law   or   to   the   legitimate  aim  sought  to  be  protected.  For  those  subject  to  the  law,  vague  provisions   fail   to   give   adequate   notice   of   exactly   what   conduct   is   prohibited.   As   a   result,   they   exert   an   unacceptable   chilling   effect   on   freedom   of   expression   as   individuals   steer   5  UN  General  Assembly  Resolution  217A(III)  of  10  December  1948.   6  UN  General  Assembly  Resolution  2200A(XXI)  of  16  December  1966,  in  force  23  March  1976.   7  General  Comment  No.  34,  12  September  2011,  CCPR/C/GC/34,  para.  22.  See  also  Mukong  v.   Cameroon,  21  July  1994,  Communication  No.458/1991,  para.9.7  (UN  Human  Rights  Committee).   The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy -2-