Philippines: Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 for   the   website   of   any   due   process   protection.   In   many   cases,   the   issue   will   be   complex.   For   example,   whether   a   statement   is   or   is   not   defamatory   can   be   legally   and   factually   complicated   and   highly   contextual,   and   is   normally   something   that   should   be   dealt   with   by   a   court.   Standards   for   what   constitutes   pornography   or   obscenity   are   even   more   vague   and   subjective,   and   there   may   also   be   political   pressure  to  remove  material  of  this  nature,  making  this  another  area  where  section   19   is   ripe   for   abuse,   taking   into   account   section   4(c)(1)   of   the   Cybercrime   Prevention  Act,  which  criminalises  sexual  content  online.       Even   where   it   is   reasonable   to   require   a   website   containing   defamatory   or   other   illegal  material  to  remove  this  material  after  a  judicial  decision  is  handed  down  on   the  merits  of  the  case,  interim  blocking  of  material  could  only  be  acceptable  where   any   delay   in   removing   it   would   cause   irreparable   and   serious   harm,   necessitating   immediate   action.   Even   in   this   case,   it   should   be   necessary   to   obtain   the   approval   of   a  judge  for  the  blocking  action,  if  necessary  on  an  urgent  basis.     Section   19   of   the   Cybercrime   Prevention   Act   is   also   problematical   inasmuch   as   blocking   of   a   website   represents   an   extreme   sanction,   analogous,   as   noted   in   the   statement   of   the   special   international   mandates   to   banning   a   newspaper,   which   would  rarely  if  ever  be  justified.  Yet  in  many  cases,  the  only  practical  way  to  block   access  to  material  would  be  to  block  the  whole  website.  For  example,  posts  on  social   platforms  such  as  Facebook  and  Twitter  are  often  distributed  throughout  a  diverse   network   of   user   pages,   making   it   functionally   difficult   to   selectively   block   out   the   areas   of   the   network   that   contain   a   particular   statement.   In   other   words,   enforcement   of   section   19   could   mean   that   the   posting   of   an   illegal   statement   on   Facebook,  Twitter  or  YouTube  would  require  the  Minister  of  Justice  to  block  these   services  entirely,  although  in  the  vast  majority  of  cases  more  limited  measures,  such   as   requiring   the   owner   of   the   website   to   take   down   offensive   material   or   face   the   normal  sanctions  for  refusing  to  obey  a  court  order,  would  suffice.       Recommendation:     Ø Section  19  should  be  deleted.     4. Universal Jurisdiction   The   Internet   transcends   national   borders   and   is   ill   suited   to   traditional   understandings   of   territoriality.   This   problem   was   addressed   in   the   2005   Joint   Declaration   of   the   (then)   three   special   international   mandates   on   freedom   of   expression   –   the   UN   Special   Rapporteur   on   Freedom   of   Opinion   and   Expression,   the   The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy - 10 -