Philippines: Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 operation   in   Europe   (OSCE)   Representative   on   Freedom   of   the   Media,   the   Organization   of   American   States   (OAS)   Special   Rapporteur   on   Freedom   of   Expression   and   the   African   Commission   on   Human   and   Peoples’   Rights   (ACHPR)   Special   Rapporteur   on   Freedom   of   Expression   and   Access   to   Information   –   have   adopted  a  Joint  Declaration  on  a  freedom  of  expression  theme  since  1999.  The  2011   Joint  Declaration,  on  Freedom  of  Expression  and  the  Internet,  included  the  following   statement:     Freedom   of   expression   applies   to   the   Internet,   as   it   does   to   all   means   of   communication.   Restrictions   on   freedom   of   expression   on   the   Internet   are   only   acceptable   if   they   comply   with   established   international   standards,   including   that   they   are   provided   for   by   law,   and   that   they   are   necessary   to   protect   an   interest   which  is  recognised  under  international  law  (the  ‘three-­‐part’  test).14     Thus,   in   order   to   be   legitimate,   the   restrictions   in   the   Cybercrime   Prevention   Act   should   be   consistent   with   the,   ICCPR,   and   in   particular   they   should   be   justifiable   under  the  three-­‐part  test.     2. Criminal Content Prohibitions   General  Extension  of  Criminal  Offences   A  particular  concern  with  the  Cybercrime  Prevention  Act  is  section  6,  which  appears   to   extend   liability   for   all   crimes,   including   those   involving   content   offences,   to   the   online  world,  while  also  increasing  the  penalties  for  these  crimes:     All  crimes  defined  and  penalized  by  the  Revised  Penal  Code,  as  amended,  and  special   laws,  if  committed  by,  through  and  with  the  use  of  information  and  communications   technologies  shall  be  covered  by  the  relevant  provisions  of  this  Act:  Provided,  That   the   penalty   to   be   imposed   shall   be   one   (1)   degree   higher   than   that   provided   for   by   the   Revised  Penal  Code,  as  amended,  and  special  laws,  as  the  case  may  be.     The  rationale  underlying  this  provision  is  puzzling.  Most  obviously,  it  is  difficult  to   understand   why   legislators   should   feel   the   need   to   treat   crimes   more   seriously   if   they  are  committed  online.  Indeed,  if  anything,  the  opposite  should  be  true,  at  least   for   crimes   involving   content.   As   Principle   1   of   the   Council   of   Europe’s   the   Declaration  on  freedom  of  communication  on  the  Internet  states:     Member   States   should   not   subject   content   on   the   Internet   to   restrictions   which   go   further  than  those  applied  to  other  means  of  content  delivery.15     14  Adopted  1  June  2011,  clause  1(a).  Available  at:  http://www.law-­‐democracy.org/wp-­‐ content/uploads/2010/07/11.06.Joint-­‐Declaration.Internet.pdf.   15  Adopted  by  the  Committee  of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of  Europe  on  28  May  2003.   The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy -5-