Philippines: Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 Revised  Penal  Code  should  be  deleted.       3. Removal of Websites   A   significant   problem   with   the   Cybercrime   Prevention   Act   is   that   is   grants   the   Department  of  Justice  sweeping  power  to  censor  websites.  Section  19  states:     Restricting   or   Blocking   Access   to   Computer   Data.   —  When   a   computer   data   is  prima   facie  found  to  be  in  violation  of  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  the  DOJ  shall  issue  an  order   to  restrict  or  block  access  to  such  computer  data.     Such   a   restriction   or   blocking   order   is   a   form   of   prior   censorship.   Although   this   is   not   entirely   ruled   out   under   international   law,   international   courts   have   held   that   such  measures  must  be  treated  with  the  greatest  suspicion.  The  European  Court  of   Human  Rights,  for  example,  has  stated:     [T]he   Court   has   emphasised   that   while   Article   10   [which   guarantees   freedom   of   expression]   does   not   prohibit   the   imposition   of   prior   restraints   on   publication,   the   dangers   inherent   in   prior   restraints   are   such   that   they   call   for   the   most   careful   scrutiny  on  the  part  of  the  Court.20     The   special   international   mandates   have   made   it   clear   that   mandatory   blocking   of   websites  (as  opposed  to  user  blocking  based  on  personal  preferences)  is  extremely   problematical,  noting  in  their  2011  Joint  Declaration:     Mandatory   blocking   of   entire   websites,   IP   addresses,   ports,   network   protocols   or   types   of   uses   (such   as   social   networking)   is   an   extreme   measure   –   analogous   to   banning  a  newspaper  or  broadcaster  –  which  can  only  be  justified  in  accordance  with   international   standards,   for   example   where   necessary   to   protect   children   against   sexual  abuse.     Although   it   is   not   stated   explicitly   in   the   quotation   above,   it   flows   from   that   statement  that  such  blocking  could  only  ever  be  justifiable  in  the  context  of  judicial   action.   The   fact   that   section   19   gives   a   political   organ   of   government,   the   Department   of   Justice,   the   power   to   unilaterally   block   websites   based   on   a   prima   facie  finding,  with  no  judicial  involvement,  simply  cannot  be  justified  as  a  restriction   on  freedom  of  expression.     It   is   not   just   that   this   power   might   be   abused   for   political   purposes,   although   that   is   serious  enough.  It  is  also  that  allowing,  indeed  requiring  (for  the  provision  uses  the   term  ‘shall’),  a  minister  to  wield  such  power  effectively  deprives  those  responsible   20  Mosley  v.  the  United  Kingdom,  10  May  2011,  Application  no.  48009/08,  para.  117.   The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy -9-