Philippines: Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 OSCE  Representative  on  Freedom  of  the  Media,  and  the  OAS  Special  Rapporteur  on   Freedom  of  Expression  –  which  included  a  focus  on  the  Internet:     Jurisdiction  in  legal  cases  relating  to  Internet  content  should  be  restricted  to  States   in   which   the   author   is   established   or   to   which   the   content   is   specifically   directed;   jurisdiction   should   not   be   established   simply   because   the   content   has   been   downloaded  in  a  certain  State.21     However,   section   21   does   not   follow   this   principle,   and   instead   provides   for   incredibly  broad  jurisdiction  under  the  Cybercrime  Prevention  Act:       Jurisdiction.  —   The   Regional   Trial   Court   shall   have   jurisdiction   over   any   violation   of   the   provisions   of   this   Act.   including   any   violation   committed   by   a   Filipino   national   regardless  of  the  place  of  commission.  Jurisdiction  shall  lie  if  any  of  the  elements  was   committed  within  the  Philippines  or  committed  with  the  use  of  any  computer  system   wholly  or  partly  situated  in  the  country,  or  when  by  such  commission  any  damage  is   caused   to   a   natural   or   juridical   person   who,   at   the   time   the   offense   was   committed,   was  in  the  Philippines.   There   shall   be   designated   special   cybercrime   courts   manned   by   specially   trained   judges  to  handle  cybercrime  cases.     Anything   published   on   the   Internet   is,   generally   speaking,   available   everywhere   in   the   world   through   the   use   of   local   servers   and   computers   or   mobile   devices.   As   a   result,   the   phrasing   of   this   provision   is   such   that   a   vast   range   of   illegal   material   published  anywhere  could  be  subject  to  prosecution  under  this  law.       For  example,  imagine  a  French  citizen  in  France  who  writes  a  blog  post  which  under   Philippine  law  is  defamatory  of  another  French  citizen.  Because  the  statement  was   made   online,   it   will   be   accessible   in   the   Philippines   through   the   use   of   local   computer   systems.   If   even   one   person   who   happens   to   be   in   the   Philippines   while   the  material  is  still  online  and  who  happens  to  know  of  the  French  citizen  who  was   defamed   views   the   material,   it   would   be   subject   to   the   blocking   and   defamation   provisions  of  the  Cybercrime  Prevention  Act.  The  same  would  be  true  if  the  defamed   French  citizen  should  ever  visit  the  Philippines  while  the  material  was  still  available   online.   In   effect,   this   provision   gives   Philippine   authorities   the   mandate   and   responsibility  to  police  the  entire  Internet,  and  to  interpose  themselves  in  cases  that   have  no  connection  whatsoever  to  the  Philippines.       Claims  of  universal  jurisdiction  over  the  Internet  present  a  significant  challenge  to   freedom   of   expression   online   because   they   subject   users   to   a   patchwork   of   conflicting   legal   frameworks.   This   depresses   online   speech   by   forcing   websites   to   either   regulate   all   of   their   content   consistent   with   the   world’s   harshest   and   most   restrictive   standards   –   a   lowest   common   denominator   approach   –   or   to   block   the   availability   of   their   content   in   jurisdictions   whose   laws   they   do   not   wish   to   conform   21  Adopted  21  December  2005.  Available  at:  http://www.osce.org/fom/27455.   The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy - 11 -