Philippines: Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 proportionate   to   the   legitimate   aim.   The   proportionality   part   of   the   test   involves   comparing   two   factors,   namely   the   likely   effect   of   the   restriction   on   freedom   of   expression  and  its  impact  on  the  legitimate  aim  which  is  sought  to  be  protected.       The  UN  Human  Rights  Committee  has  summarised  these  conditions  as  follows:     Restrictions  must  not  be  overbroad.  The  Committee  observed  in  general  comment  No.   27   that   “restrictive   measures   must   conform   to   the   principle   of   proportionality;   they   must   be   appropriate   to   achieve   their   protective   function;   they   must   be   the   least   intrusive   instrument   amongst   those   which   might   achieve   their   protective   function;   they   must   be   proportionate   to   the   interest   to   be   protected…The   principle   of   proportionality  has  to  be  respected  not  only  in  the  law  that  frames  the  restrictions  but   also  by  the  administrative  and  judicial  authorities  in  applying  the  law”.  The  principle   of  proportionality  must  also  take  account  of  the  form  of  expression  at  issue  as  well  as   the   means   of   its   dissemination.   For   instance,   the   value   placed   by   the   Covenant   upon   uninhibited  expression  is  particularly  high  in  the  circumstances  of  public  debate  in  a   democratic  society  concerning  figures  in  the  public  and  political  domain.     When   a   State   party   invokes   a   legitimate   ground   for   restriction   of   freedom   of   expression,   it   must   demonstrate   in   specific   and   individualized   fashion   the   precise   nature   of   the   threat,   and   the   necessity   and   proportionality   of   the   specific   action   taken,   in   particular   by   establishing   a   direct   and   immediate   connection   between   the   expression  and  the  threat.  [references  omitted]12       The  right  to  freedom  of  expression  also  finds  protection  in  the  Bill  of  Rights  of  the   Constitution  of  the  Philippines:13     Article  III     …   Section  4:   No  law  shall  be  passed  abridging  the  freedom  of  speech,  of  expression,   or  of  the  press,   or   the   right   of   the   people   peaceably   to   assemble   and   petition   the   government   for   redress  of  grievances.     Given   that   the   Philippines   has   ratified   the   ICCPR,   the   Constitution   of   the   Philippines   should,   to   the   extent   reasonably   possible,   be   interpreted   in   a   manner   that   gives   effect  to  the  country’s  obligations  under  the  ICCPR.  In  other  words,  restrictions  on   freedom   of   expression   in   the   Philippines   should   receive   constitutional   assessment   that  is  at  least  as  protective  as  the  three-­‐part  test  under  international  law.     As  a  medium  of  communication,  it  is  evident  that  any  regulation  of  the  Internet  must   conform   to   freedom   of   expression   standards.   The   four   special   international   mandates   on   freedom   of   expression   –   the   United   Nations   (UN)   Special   Rapporteur   on   Freedom   of   Opinion   and   Expression,   the   Organization   for   Security   and   Co-­‐ 12  General  Comment  No.  34,  note  7,  paras.  34  and  35.   13  Available  at:  http://www.gov.ph/the-­‐philippine-­‐constitutions/the-­‐1987-­‐constitution-­‐of-­‐the-­‐ republic-­‐of-­‐the-­‐philippines/the-­‐1987-­‐constitution-­‐of-­‐the-­‐republic-­‐of-­‐the-­‐philippines-­‐article-­‐iii/.   The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy -4-