By Raïssa Robles
With a bit more digging, I have found out SIX MORE THINGS how Congress came up with a horrible Cybercrime Law.
FIRST, we owe the present law mainly to 19 lawmakers who crafted the final version in a Bicameral Conference Committee.
The Bicam – senators and congressmen working together to hammer out one bill –was co-chaired by Senator Edgardo Angara and Congressman Sigfrido Tinga. I tried interviewing Angara, the main sponsor, last week but was told he was in Rome. I set an appointment but has yet to get word about it to date.
The Senate was represented by Senators Angara, Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Jinggoy Estrada, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Antonio Trillanes, Bong Revilla and Manuel Villar, according to Senate records.
The House of Representatives was represented by Tinga (leader of the House contingent), Juan Edgardo “Sonny” Angara (Aurora), Diosdado “Dato” Macapagal, Jr. (Camarines Sur), Roilo Golez (Paranaque) Miro Quimbo (Marikina), Susan Yap (Tarlac), Ma. Rachel Arenas (Pangasinan), Eric Singson Jr. (Ilocos Sur), Teodoro Marcelino (Marikina), Mel Sarmiento (Western Samar), Cesar Sarmiento (Catanduanes) and Rufus Rodriguez (Cagayan de Oro City).
Macapagal’s mother, Congresswoman Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, was listed as one of the bill’s co-sponsors.
Congressman Angara is Senator Angara’s son who is now running for senator.
SECOND, the Cybercrime Prevention Act was a “priority legislation” of President Benigno Aquino III and could therefore be rushed through Congress. Even faster than the Reproductive Health (RH) bill and the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill, it turns out.
THIRD, it was
Senator Pia Cayetano who at the Senate “inserted” – according to the Senate Journal of January 24, 2012 – that two highly controversial provisions were inserted: The Real Time Collection of Traffic Data and the “take down.” The latter, especially, gives the Department of Justice awesome powers to block Filipino access to websites that are the subject of complaints.
But at the time that
Cayetano (a lawyer) had proposed it and Angara had acceded to the insertion, it did not quite have the potential to enable the justice department to build the equivalent of the “Great Firewall of China”, which would in effect censor the Internet. I’ll explain that later.
UPDATE: As of 10:30 pm, October 8, 2012
The Office of Sen. Pia Cayetano has provided the actual transcript of the January 24, 2012 Senate proceedings. Accordingly, I am inserting corrections in this report that it was not Sen. Pia Cayetano who had inserted the two controversial provisions I mentioned. Sen. Cayetano’s Facebook Fan Page stated it was Sen. Edgardo Angara who had inserted these. But the transcript does not indicate that too. All we know is that these were inserted during the period of amendments at the Senate.
I am explaining what had happened in my new post entitled: To the staff of Senator Pia Cayetano
UPDATE: As of 8:15 am, Oct 5, 2012
The “Office of Sen. Pia Cayetano” told me on the social networking site “Twitter” this morning that it wasn’t she who had inserted the two controversial provisions.
When I asked WHO and “was it Senator Angara?”, the one twitting did not reply. But promised to send me documents to prove it.
The Senate Journal indicated the amendments under the heading – “Remarks of Sen. Cayetano.”
The one on Twitter said:
“Journal says so, as clear as day. If those were hers, the Journal would have bore the heading “Sen @piacayetano amendments.”
I am awaiting the docs.
FOURTH, It was the bicam committee that unlocked the DOJ’s enormous power to censor the Internet because of a section that the bicam added to the law. I will also explain this later.
FIFTH, the House of Representatives approved its version of the Cybercrime bill on Third Reading in “por kilo” fashion. This national law was sandwiched among 40 other mainly local bills and the entire lot was approved at one go during one voting under the direction of Congresswoman Mar-Len Abigail
“Nancy” Binay, who was then the presiding officer. She is the daughter of Vice-President Jejomar Binay and is now running for senator. This means by simply voting “Yes” just once, each congressman signified approval of ALL 41 bills, including the Cybercrime bill.
UPDATE: As of Oct 5, 2012 7:01 AM –
Mar-Len and Nancy Binay are two different Binay daughters. Nancy is the eldest duaghter, currently working under Vice-President Jejomar Binay. I never imagined there were that many Binays wanting to run for office.
SIXTH, among those who had approved the House version of the Cybercrime bill on Third Reading was Congressman Teddy Casiño (who is running for senator). He explained to me why he backed the bill at that time.
Anakbayan Kabataan Partylist Representative Mong Palatino told me he himself doesn’t recall approving the bill on Third Reading even though his name is listed in the House journal as having voted “yes”.
And now for the nitty gritty details of how the law was made
For starters, let’s review briefly how Congress passes a law. The 1987 Constitution merely states that every law has to undergo THREE READINGS in both chambers of Congress “on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency.”
The Cybercrime Crime law was a “certified” piece of legislation by PNoy, according to House Journal 49 on the May 9, 2012 floor deliberations. [Note: It was for this reason that its passage was rushed.] On the same day, amendments to the bill were introduced and the bill was approved on SECOND READING.
Por kilo approval
On May 16, 2012 – only a week after the SECOND READING – the House approved the Cybercrime Bill on THIRD READING. What actually happened was that someone read out the titles of 41 bills up for Third Reading, according to House Journal No. 50. Most of them dealt with establishing high schools or a fish port or converting an existing road into a national road or establishing a Land Transportation Office in a certain village or declaring a non-working holiday in a certain town. The Cybercrime bill was number 26 among the names of the 41 bills read out.
It was for this reason that Congressman Neri Colmenares told me in an interview that he was unaware the Cybercrime Law was approved on May 16:
That’s really a surprise for me. Pag national bill dapat separate approval. [This should be approved separately by itself.]
I asked him where in the House rules is that stated.
Colmenares replied it was “a tradition” to approve local bills en masse, but not national bills of national significance like the Cybercrime Act. The journal did not have him casting any vote on the Cybercrime bill on Third Reading.
Personally, from what I know, the Constitution empowers each chamber of Congress to make its own rules of procedure. And if the majority allow this kind of wholesale approval and no one really questions it, then it continues.
Congressman Raymond “Mong” Palatino was only one of two lawmakers who officially expressed objections to certain sections of the Cybercrime bill. I asked him why House Journal No. 50 says he had voted “Yes” on Third Reading.
He was surprised to learn that and said:
I don’t recall I ever voted for the Cybercrime habang nandoon ako sa plenary. Hindi ko inexpect na ganon kabilis. May 9 lang ako nag-interpellate. [I don’t recall I ever voted for the Cybercrime bill on Third Reading during the May 16 plenary. I did not expect it to be that fast since I only interpellated on May 9.]
Maaring nandoon ako ng alas-cuatro, nagbotohan 5:30. Dahil walang nag-object nilagay na ang lahat na nandoon sa roll-call na bumoto ng yes. [I may have been present at the plenary at 4 pm, but the voting happened at 5:30 pm. Because no one objected, they must have just placed all those present at the roll-call as having voted “yes”.]
The May 16, 2012 House Journal No. 50 stated that Palatino was present at 4 PM. However, after 5 PM, the Journal stated:
The Chair ( Mar-Len Abigail Binay) directed the Secretary General to call the Roll for nominal voting. Thereafter, pursuant to the Rules of the House, a second Roll Call was made.
RESULT OF THE VOTING
The result of the voting was as follows:
Del Rosario (A. A.)
Del Rosario (A. G.)
With 211 affirmative votes, no negative votes and no abstentions, the Body approved on Third Reading the aforementioned Bills.
And that was how the House approved the Cybercrime bill on Third Reading.
Congressman Teddy Casiño explains his “YES” vote on Third Reading
I phoned House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte to ask him about his “Yes” vote. He did not answer his mobile. Neither did Congressman Roilo Golez.
Fortunately, I got through to Congressman Casiño.
Casiño confirmed that he did vote for the Cybercrime bill on Third Reading:
Because it was a good law when it passed the House. Our version had no libel (clause).
Casiño explained to me that both Congressmen Palatino and Tonchi Tinio had succeeded in removing “cyberdefamation” from the House version during the period of amendments. [Note: Cyberdefamation includes libel which is smearing someone in print; and slander which is oral defamation.]
From the start we were alarmed. We talked about it. There were seven versions of this bill. We decided we have to remove the objectionable provisions, the somewhat draconian provisions. We did that in the plenary. We removed cyberdefamation. We ensured that all actions of the Department of Justice when it comes to search and seizure should be covered by court warrants to ensure due process.
Casiño said that as far as he knew, the House version that was approved on Third Reading no longer carried cyberdefamation and had tightened the search and seizure provisions.
But the Senate “inserted” online libel and a “take down” provision to the law
Separately on January 24, 2012, the Senate held its floor deliberations and period of amendment on its own Cybercrime bill.
It was on that day that Senator Vicente Sotto III inserted “online libel”, which was never in the consolidated bill that Senator Angara, the principal sponsor, had presented as the working draft.
Sotto was the last senator to propose amendments and he himself moved to close the period of amendments.
Before Sotto spoke,
however, Senator Pia Cayetano inserted her own amendments to the bill. Angara told his colleagues what amendments he had accepted. Cayetano successfully replaced this section in Angara replaced the following in the consolidated bill:
28 SEC. 9. Real-time Collection of Computer Data. — Law enforcement authorities,
29 with due cause, and upon securing a court warrant, shall be authorized to collect or record
30 by technical or electronic means, and service providers are required to collect or record
31 by technical or electronic means, and/or to cooperate and assist law enforcement
32 authorities in the collection or recording of, traffic data, in real-time, associated with
33 specified communications transmitted by means of a computer system.
her own this amendment which went this way:
SEC. 9. REAL-TIME COLLECTION OF
TRAFFIC DATA. – LAW ENFORCEMENT
AUTHORITIES, WITH DUE CAUSE, SHALL
BE AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT OR
RECORD BY TECHNICAL OR ELECTRONIC
MEANS TRAFFIC DATA IN REAL-TIME
ASSOCIATED WITH SPECIFIED COMMUNICATIONS
MEANS OF A COMPUTER SYSTEM.
TRAFFIC DATA REFER NOT ONLY
TO COMMUNICATION’S ORIGIN, DESTINATION,
ROUTE, TIME, DATE, SIZE,
DURATION, OR TYPE OF UNDERLYING
SERVICE, BUT NOT CONTENT, NOR
ALL OTHER DATA TO BE COLLECTED
OR SEIZED OR DISCLOSED WILL REQUIRE
A COURT WARRANT.
SERVICE PROVIDERS ARE REQUIRED
TO COOPERATE AND ASSIST LAW
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES IN THE
COLLECTION OR RECORDING OF THE
Cayetano, a lawyer, also successfully inserted this new section, which Internet and the Law expert JJ Disini calls this new section “the take down provision”:
SEC. 13. RESTRICTING OR BLOCKING
ACCESS TO COMPUTER DATA. – WHEN
A COMPUTER DATA IS PRIMA FACIE
FOUND TO BE VIOLATIVE OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, THE CENTRAL
AUTHORITY SHALL ISSUE AN ORDER TO
RESTRICT OR BLOCK ACCESS TO SUCH
She was only referring to the cyber offenses like cybersex.
But after Sotto’s inclusion of “online libel”, this meant that “real-time collection of traffic data” and the “take down provision” could also be applied to this crime of cybersex. This also meant that websites which commit “online libel” could be blocked and the alleged perpetrator could be subjected to electronic surveillance.
What happened at the Bicam Conference on the Cybercrime Law
During the Bicam Conference on the law, the 19 lawmakers collectively decided to adopt the Senate version as THE BASIS for the consolidated version.
This meant that Senator Sotto’s insertion of “online libel” and
Senator Cayetano’s the insertions on “real-time collection of traffic data” and the “take down” provision automatically became part of the final version of the law.
In addition, the Bicam did something that greatly expanded the scope of the Cybercrime Law. Instead of this being restricted to the listed electronic crimes of cyber-squatting, hacking and cybersex, it covered the entire body of crimes found in the Revised Penal Code and all special laws.
All because someone in the the Bicam inserted an entirely new section, which used to be a sub-section in the House bill version.
Let me explain the huge impact of this, but I have to back-track a little.
When I talked to Congressman Casiño, I had asked him how he could have voted “yes” for the House version of the Cybercrime bill that had crammed the entire Revised Penal Code into the bill without taking into account the nature of the Internet.
For instance, I told him, if a woman commits adultery using a computer, she would be guilty of a cybercrime and her penalty would be one degree higher.
Casiño told me that would not happen since adultery is not among the cybercrimes enumerated by the House bill on Third Reading. He also said that making the penalty for cybercrime offenses one degree higher was never in the House version.
But I pointed out to him that the House version contained the following paragraph under “Section 4: Cybercrime Offenses”
All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special criminal laws committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies shall be covered by the relevant
provisions of this Act.
Casiño told me he was not bothered at all by this inclusion of the Revised Penal Code because it was under Section 4, listing the crimes of cyber-squatting, hacking, computer fraud and forgery, cybersex and advertising spam. This meant, Casiño said, that only those crimes in the Revised Penal Code that had to do with similar offenses were covered.
It was then I understood what the Bicam Conference did which exponentially expanded the scope of the Cybercrime Law.
If you notice, all Philippine laws are written in the form of an outline in order to show clearly the relation of one part to all the other parts. CHANGING THE LOCATION OF A SINGLE PARAGRAPH can have profound effects on the meaning of the law.
This was what happened to the Cybercrime Law. Let me explain with a simple illustration.
Suppose a certain school named Wanbol University issued a set of rules of behavior for its students.
The rules were issued in outline form:
Rules of Student Behavior in Wanbol University
1. During exams:
(a) Students cannot glance at their seat mate’s test paper
(b) Students cannot use calculators
(c) Students cannot go to the bathroom
However, someone edited it and what came out was the following:
Rules of Student Behavior in Wanbol University
1. During exams:
(a) Students cannot glance at their seat mate’s test paper
(b) Students cannot use calculators
2. Students cannot go to the bathroom
From this example, you can see that the original intention of Wanbol was to bar students from going to the bathroom only during exams. But with the editing, the Wanbol students are barred from going to the bathroom at all times.
A similar thing happened at the Bicam Committee on the Cybercrime Law. The Bicam lifted that portion of Section 4 that had to do with the Revised Penal Code – insofar as the listed cyberoffenses were concerned – and placed this as a new section.
Senator Angara told senators on June 5, 2012 that the Bicam did the following:
A new Section 6 was added to the reconciled
version which reads as follows:
“Sec. 6. – 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 degree higher than that provided
for by the Revised Penal Code and special
Implications of Bicam’s insertion of Section 6
This insertion not only turned all jailable crimes in the country into cybercrimes. It added that “if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies…the penalty imposed shall be one degree higher…”
To use my previous example of the case of the woman accused of adultery, because of Section 6, if a married woman’s e-mail to her lover were submitted as evidence, her penalty if convicted automatically becomes one degree higher.
And even if we were to remove the “online libel” section inserted by Senator Sotto, libel will still be a cybercrime if Section 6 is retained.
In addition, if you relate Section 6
to Senator Pia Cayetano’s the “take down” provision, you will have many many more requests to block sites. And as Atty JJ Disini explained to me in an interview:
When you add up all the requests together [for blocking content] – whether the requests involve copyright or trademark infringement, entire domain names, or any other kind of violation of Philippine law, then the sum is equivalent to the ‘Great Firewall of China’.
The Constitution is silent on the role of Bicam Committees.
“It can do anything,” Congressman Casiño said. “That’s the Third House. The weakness is that whatever the result of the Bicam, the House members are no longer told. We only know what the Bicam version contained after the President signs it into law.”
An Internet Libel case goes global between two billionaires.
A Thrilla in Manila, whilst Phils’. Cybercrime Law on TRO.
Sounds exciting, a test case for what would have been a first for The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175). But alas, “… internet libel may be ‘dealt with’ or prosecuted under the existing provisions of the RPC on libel,” could suffice.
Out of Topic:
Not Cyberbullying but SMSbullying (texting) that caused the highest leader/speaker of the House of Representatives of Australia to resign.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives quits for offensive text messages which were revealed in legal action against him, but then decided he could not continue in the post.
SC stops Cybercrime law, issues TRO
Wow, this is godd new Netizens!
Democracy at work!
Importance of independent SC is shown today. Hopefully they decide that the Libel provision is unconstitutional, otherwise baka magkaron ng Cyber Edsa Revolution!
mali…magkakaron ng EdRaissa Revolution!
TRO…SC…breaking the news…breaking Cybercrime law…as a start!
1 in Palace did not see….211 in Lower House did not see it…14 in Upper House did not see it…
Millions of Filipinos saw it…now 14 SC JUSTICES sees it….this country hopes SC will finally break this law to get back people’s belief in that we have a new Supreme Court!
The writing in the wall…break also family dynasties! Break ‘EM all! Make ’em all lose!
Johnny Lin says
I have direct message to baycas, was placed in moderation
chit navarro says
FROM the FB page of Bam Aquino:
CYBERCRIME LAW NEEDS AMENDMENTS – BENIGNO BAM AQUINO
by Bam Aquino on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 at 15:01 ·
20 September 2012 – Benigno “Bam” Aquino, the first senatorial aspirant from the “Facebook generation”, says that the recently passed Cybercrime Law is “welcome, but needs amendments.”
“The presence of a cybercrime law is welcome, as child rightsand women’s rights advocates have long been pushing for the protectionof children, youth, and women against such crimes ascyber-trafficking, cyber-prostitution, cyber-pornography, and thelike,” Aquino says. “We have seen reports pointing to an increase inthe number of crimes committed with the aid of the Internet, socialmedia, and even SMS—and there is cause for alarm.”
According to Aquino, both data and anecdotal evidence point toincreased incidences of cybercrimes, including cyber-stalking andcyber-harassment, and even rape and violence against women that occurduring “eyeballs.”
“If we don’t do something about it, criminal elements and syndicatesoperating online might think that they can get away scot-free. Withmore and more Filipinos going online—many of them being exposed to the Internet and social media at a younger age—we need to ensure that our laws can protect children and youth from cybercrimes.”
“We can’t turn a blind eye on changing realities and advancingtechnologies,” Aquino adds.
However, Aquino also points to problematic provisions in the Cybercrime Law including one that makes it “appear to be curtailing netizens’ freedom of speech.”
“Some provisions in this version of the Cybercrime Law are too vague,”he points out. According to him, these include the provisions oncybersquatting, on libel, and on warrantless arrests, among others.“We should look into amending the law so that it does not violate ourconstitutional right to freedom of speech. Nakakatakot kasi dahilpuwede itong gamiting para kitilin ang karapatan ng marami.”
Aquino expresses his confidence over the government’s openness to“make the law work,” saying that this administration is known to bepromoting openness, good governance, and transparency.
“We are confident that the national government will heed the call ofnetizens to discuss and amend the law. This is a government anchoredon ideals of freedom and democracy, and we are sure that thistranslates even to the online realm.”
You MUST ask yourself that question.
The Senate Journal of January 24, 2012 is enough to show that Sen. Pia Cayetano et al were CORRECT and you were wrong.
An investigative journalist like you MUST not assume things and MUST at once admit mistakes.
I still have high regard for you though.
However, I will now thank you for having me here. Farewell to this blog.
P.S. No, you were not and never been moderated. I don’t know why your comments kept landing in the spam box.
I will miss you, but you have the right.
I differ with you, though, in the interpretation of the Senate Journal.
As I said, the first two amendments mentioned by Senator Angara were those of Sen. Cayetano.
In many, many instances, I have relied on – and with accurate results – in this kind of interpretation of the Senate Journal.
Apparently, the Senate journal can no longer be interpreted in this manner.
The reason why my apology took so long was because I needed to be sure. I asked for the transcript of the proceedings last Friday from Senator Cayetano’s office and someone said this would only be available by Monday.
You see, the actual transcript is not placed online. I don’t know why. If I wanted to get it, I would physically have to go to the Senate and request for it there. Asking for it through Sen. Cayetano’s office was the simplest and fastest way.
P.S. No, your comments were never moderated. I don’t know why they all kept landing in the spam box.
I will truly MISS you @baycas! Adios! Hasta la vista! bay…@baycas.
cy.PS…many thanks too reading your good works here!
You are the only one here who was able to point that the interpretation of the journal was confusing and prone to misinterpretation.
Raissa usually follow up with corrections when mistakes are made, and even columnists issue an erratum afterwards.
It seems that this particular differences with is the last straw for you. i hope you reconsider bidding farewell, because this site needs your great insight, your attention to details and your passion to educate the visitors and participants in this site.
Your departure will be our loss. I hope after a few rounds of cyber beer or jack daniels, you’ll be back the soonest.
Johnny Lin says
My friend, in my post way down, i expressed that enough already on the tome we spent on this matter. We have voiced put pur concerns, every machineries have moved. Many senators have expressed regrets and will to amend.
You advised me to stay. I told you I will. Honestly, i dont understand how that journal works because the process is so confusing, that is why i said enough already since we basically know whonare mainly responsible. You might have different understanding because of your greater perception and knowledge of the process. And I admire your insistence to have a wider discussion. You could be right or both of you could be right, the way each of you understood the process. At the end of the day, i believe, to many of us it does not matter anymore as far as the guilty parties are concern.
Please relax, cool off like you or I did before. Do come back because your input is much appreciated especially those links you kept feeding us. Personally I will miss your service attaching my links, to that my sincere gratitude. But I wish you keep doing it for me, pleeeeease.
I am giving Raissa the permission to give you my email in case you want to communicate personally and privately for posterity and new friendship
sir baycas, bakit po saan kayo pupunta? mami miss ko po ang mga comments nyo. ang dami ko pong natutunan sa inyo. sana huwag kayo umalis marami pa po kayong matutulungan na maliwanagan ang mga bagay bagay. pero kung talagang dapat kayo umalis dahil sa ikabubuti nyo ok lang po. paalam po at maraming maraming salamat sa mgga magagandang naiparating nyo sa amin.
Please don’t leave baycas…don’t give up easily. The likes of you is what the people need to disseminate informations that otherwise would not reach readers like me.
Your are one of the top twenty commenters on this site. I for one, rely most of the time to your posts. I may not agree to a very few of your comments, but that’s how discussions work.
You’ve been doing greats baycas, not only here, but also to other blogs. I read one of your posts dated 2005…couldn’t help to be wowed.
@ Sir Baycas, alis na po kayo? bakit po? hindi po ba pupuwede na mag agree to disagree kayo ni ma’m raissa. hindi lang naman po kayo ang namomoderate eh. ako rin madalas, isip ko nalang mabagal ang isp ko. or ma traffic papunta kina ma’m raissa.
sayang sir baycas, mamimiss ko rin po kayo. ang dami dami at ang gaganda pa naman ng tula, at mga links mo. marami ako natutunan din po sa inyo. maraming salamat po. meron din po ba kayong blog na pwede ko pong mabisita paminsan-minsan? sana po, bumalik din po kayo dito paminsan-minsan.
@Johnny Lin says:
October 8, 2012 at 8:42 am
Read Special Report in Manila Bulletin by Andrew Masigan:
“A Few Deserving Senatorial Bets”
Maybe @baycas could attach link
His first candidate is Jun Magsaysay.
Guess the names he recommends NOT TO BE ELECTED
A Few Deserving Senatorial Bets
Numbers Don’t Lie
By ANDREW JAMES MASIGAN
October 7, 2012, 2:14pm
But before I reveal my first senatorial choice, let me first tell you who I am NOT voting for. I am not voting for candidates who are next of kin to any incumbent senator. I say this because no single family should have more than one vote in the formation of national policy. This could prove dangerous especially if the family has inclinations, or already is, a political dynasty. Moreover, no candidate should gain undue advantage just because he or she enjoys the benefit of name recall.
I will not vote for those intellectually and experientially deficient, those suspect of having committed crime, and (especially) those who, in the past, sabotaged the economy by mounting a power grab through military rebellion. These are people who do not deserve the vote of hardworking citizens like you and me.
Teddy Locsin qouted you in tonight’s TEDiitorial Oct. 8
titled “The assasination of virtual freedom”
Teditorial: The Assassination of Virtual Freedom http://bit.ly/Rqk8p1
Thanks for calling my attention.
Johnny Lin says
Response to Mr Vince Borneo of the House of Representative letter comment #37.1 addressed to me directly in response to my comment.
To Mr. Vince Borneo:
First, my gratitude for meriting a formal response. Secondly, I am assuming you are responding in this forum as official representative of Congressman Teddy Casino. Finally, to address your pointers this way.
Our exchanges started when you pointed to @Ralph #37 that Teddy did not sign anything. Although I believed Ralph meant that Teddy voted yes on the bill, nevertheless, he did write the word”sign” which you pounced on in return, adding too in the process that Teddy signed a petition in the Supreme Court. Since you knew that Teddy co authored with Congressman Palatino a bill repealing the law, why did you not say so in the first place? If you did your letter was unnecessary. My initial comment was a citizen concern on the intelligence and ability of a congressman on how to correct a flawed law under his power before going to the Supreme Court.
You told me to read Raissa’s blog again and here is exactly what is written:
“Casino said as far as he knew, the House version approved on Third Reading no longer carried cyberdefamation and tightened the search and seizure provisions”
“as far as he knew” is a complacent approach on an important issue involving freedom of the people. Congressman Casino being a party list representing nationalistic interest especially the youth including Congressman Palatino for that matter, must have made sure to have read and scrutinized the final version of the bill before sending to the office of the president for signature. I am sure there is a process that a legislator could ask for a copy of a bill after passage by both Houses. If one congressman did just that, he could have hollered and go to the press immediately to expose the deficiencies and cruelties of the bill.we would not be pointing fingers now if someone, repeat, only one, performed his/her constitutional duty as elected legislator.
If a congressman does not have time to do that, his staff is obligated to perform in their official capacity which includes looking at all the dots on letter “i” and crosses on the “t” of every bill, especially those that are of special concern to the people.
Making excuses or justification afterwards which in my opinion Casino did in trying to explain to Raissa does not absolve the shortcoming which you are trying to justify. Lessons were learned, monday quarterbacking will not reverse the law. Current corrections are in place and hopefully everybody will do right this time not only for the people but also for the integrity of their office that our legislators are working hard for the betterment of the nation and welfare of the people.
Good luck to the new quest of Congressman Casino and so far you know he is on my list and I, like the rest of the electorates, am watching his every move.
vander anievas says
bravo johnny lin. teddy is also a strong contender in my shortlisting hunt. hope he can hurdle the amendment to patch up shortcoming/s…
good job sir jhonny.! congressman casino is one of candidates i am considering of. and to congeressman casino, we, the electorates would be glad to be by your side in pushing the anti dynasty bill.
A wild question hope you guys don’t mind… just being curious lang..
what if the late FM was still in rule today, you think he would also issue a PD similar to RA 10175?
If so .. how extensive kaya will be his policy would be?
wala lang just a wild wild question lang :)
vander anievas says
my guess is we don’t have internet at all…
wala nang pagkukumahugan ang assembly para sa pagsasabatas. anyway all alws shall be promulgated by fm himself, the supreme…
a very wild answer you need…if FM is to rule today?…he can’t he’ll be around 95 years old…he’ll be still grappling whether that was a fake or true ambots! You need also a wild wild curiousity!
he may be 95 and dead long gone. but the wife and son and daughter are still around holding their ground. sila ang namumuno, walang internet, tahimik DAW ang pilipinas. pero hindi nila alam, tahimik sa labas dahil sa takot pero sa loob ay juice ko!!! kayo na magdagdag! and for sure, wala ng mga batas na maidadagdag. at kung meron man, yon ay para maproteksyunan ang mga sarili nila.
Johnny Lin says
Latest News Rappler
Sotto in another privilege speech today:
“Stop Paranoia on Cyber Law Passage”
Maybe someone could attach the link for further discussion about his new twist over his cyberbullying. To me it’s blaming Raissa’s initial blog about Insertion.
Johnny Lin says
Thanks again Mel. Although Rappler link might be good too because entire speech is printed.
Sotto keeps rehashing the issue or is he muddling it more?
After Raissa posted her blog, Sotto initial interview denied his culpability on insertion; followed by another interview on CBS admitting his fault and now this latest speech, denying again.
Hmmm, he sounds like his boss, Enrile on his fake ambush;
or that forlorn suitor picking rose petals- she loves me, she loves me not, she loves me, she loves me not………..
He he he
vander anievas says
i didn’t get it, cyberbully weeping boy? ano talaga?…
Sa tutuo lang, we are at the dark who has been feeding the CBS and The Wall Street Journal of those supposedly admissions of Sen T Sotto.
In my previous comments where I commented on the CBS similar story, I tried to search the website of Interaksyon where the CBS quoted its story from, but not available or non-existent in that site where Sen T Sotto was quoted “verbatim” to the last minute or “midnight” admission to Libel amendment.
“MANILA, Philippines – Calling himself the “cyberbully whipping boy,” Senate Majority Leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III sought to defend himself on the Senate floor from allegations he was behind the insertion of controversial provisions in the anti-cybercrime law.
In a privilege speech on Monday, October 8, Sotto read into the records what he called the legislative history of the controversial Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
Sotto reiterated that he was not behind any insertions in the law and was not a member of the Bicameral Conference Committee that unified the Senate and House versions.
“Nais ko pong banggitin na ang Cybercrime Law ay dumaan sa tamang proseso. Wala ang sinasabi nilang insertion. Insertion is used by the Senate secretariat for something that is proposed in an amendment, not an amendment itself. Ang amendment binabago eh, ang insertion, sinasama pero ang dating sa kanila, ang insertion parang snimuggle.” (I want to mention that the Cybercrime Law passed through the proper process. There is none of the reported insertions. The amendment is changed, the insertion, they include that but the impression to them is it’s as if the insertion is smuggled.)
Sotto said he sought to set the record straight and to clear his name.
“Para lumawak ang kaisipan ng mga iba nating kababayan na patuloy akong hinuhusgahan sa cybercommunity, para doon sa mga paranoid at marurumi ang isip kasi napakarami pong magagaling, responsible users ng ating cyberspace ngunit may mga ilan na talagang ‘di ko maintindihan kung bakit nagkakaganoon ang takbo ng kaisipan.” (To broaden the minds of those who continue to judge me in the cybercommunity, for those who are paranoid and have dirty minds. Because we have many good, responsible users of cyberspace but there are some who are otherwise.)
He added, “Ang dating kasi, pag nagkapatayan sa Senado, ako ang killer eh.” (The impression is that when there’s murder in the Senate, I’m the killer.
Sotto’s speech came following backlash and finger-pointing over the law, which critics said violated freedom of expression, freedom of speech and gave the government too much power over Internet users. There are at least 14 petitions against it pending before the Supreme Court.
Some senators who voted for the bill admitted their lapse, and vowed to measures to amend it.
In his speech, Sotto said various senators filed their own versions of the bill starting July 2010. In May 2011, a joint version was passed by several committees, substituting the earlier bills filed.
Those who authored the bill were Senators Antonio Trillanes IV, Edgardo Angara, Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada, Lito Lapid, Manuel Villar, Miriam Defensor Santiago, Ferdinand Marcos Jr, and Ramon Revilla.
Sotto said the bill underwent the period of interpellations or debate for the rest of 2011. In January 2012, the period of amendments was closed.
The Senate approved the bill on 3rd reading on Jan 30, 2012, with only Sen Teofisto Guingona III voting against it.
Sotto pointed out that in the bicameral conference committee deliberations in May 2012, he was not among the conferees. Those who were designated to be part of the bicam discussions were Angara, Santiago, Estrada, Marcos, Revilla, Trillanes and Villar.
‘Why we are so rude online’
He reiterated that because the bicameral conference report was approved in June 2012, it could not have been possible that he supported it to get back at his critics in the Reproductive Health (RH) debates.
Sotto claimed he was a victim of “cyberbullying” only in August and September 2012.
“These cyberbullies should not be too presumptious, parang KSP eh, (they lack attention) feeling important eh. The Senate will enact a law for them, kokontrahin sila, reretaliate sila (contradict them retaliate against them), excuse me ah.”
Sotto ended his speech by calling on his colleagues and the public to read an article of the Wall Street Journal titled “Why we are so rude online.”
Libel bill withdrawn
In an interview before the start of the session, Sotto said he filed but soon withdrew a bill “abolishing libel” for all types of media.
Sotto filed the bill last Friday, October 5, and withdrew it on Monday, October 8.
Asked why he changed his mind, Sotto said, “Winidraw ko, alam mo kung bakit, kasi gusto rin ni Noynoy ang libel kaya winidraw ko, hintayin ko muna ang desisyon ng Supreme Court, The president is not against it why will I go against it?” (I withdrew it, you know why, because Noynoy also likes libel. I will wait for the decision of the Supreme Court first.)
President Benigno Aquino III said last week that he does not agree with calls to remove the online libel provision in the Cybercrime Prevention Act.
“If you wrote something libelous, you have a responsibility. If you are a broadcaster and you said something on radio or TV, you also have responsibility. If you said the same thing on the Internet, I believe that is also libelous. Whatever the format, if what you said was wrong, I believe that the victim should have the right for redress,” Aquino told reporters in Filipino.
Asked why he filed the bill abolishing libel in the first place, Sotto told reporters, “Kailangan patas patas hindi lang online pati kayo. Sayang naman apo ko ni press freedom law author, Sotto Law. Pinapantay ko lang, nile-level ko lang sila sa inyo ang online media. Kayo meron responsibilidad. Kung ayaw nila at ‘pag sinabi ng Supreme Court, hindi dapat ‘di kayo rin hindi dapat.” (It has to be fair, not just online but also you. It’s a shame. I’m the grandson of the Press Freedom Law author, Sotto Law. I am just leveling the playing field with online media. You have responsibility. If they don’t like it and the Supreme Court says something, then you should also not be liable.)
‘Setting the record straight’
Below is the full speech of Sotto on the Senate floor as delivered:
I rise to set the record straight, particularly on the passage of the Senate on RA 10175, the Anti-Cybercrime Act. I rise as your favorite neighborhood cyberbully whipping boy because I have been again the subject of criticism because of the passage of the anti-cybercrime act. Kaya po ako tumatayo to set the record straight para lumawak ang kaisipan ng mga iba nating kababayan na patuloy akong hinuhusgahan sa cybercommunity, para doon sa mga paranoid at marurumi ang isip kasi napakarami pong magagaling, responsible users n gating cyberspace ngunit may mga ilan na talagang di ko maintindihan kung bakit nagkakaganoon ang takbo ng kaisipan. Ang dating kasi, pag nagkapatayan sa Senado, ako ang killer eh.
Nais ko pong banggitin na ang cybercrime law ay dumaan sa tamang proseso. Wala ang sinasabi nilang insertion. Insertion is used by the Senate secretariat for something that is proposed in an amendment, not an amendment itself. Ang amendment binabago eh, ang insertion, sinasama pero ang dating sa kanila, ang insertion parang snimuggle.
So let me set the record straight. This is the legislative history ng Cybercrime Act:
July 1, 2010 – After elections po ito, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2010 was filed by Trillanes, Antonio, Sonny.
July 1, 2010 – Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2010 was filed by Angara, Edgardo J.
July 5, 2010 – Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2010 was filed by Enrile, Juan Ponce.
July 8, 2010 – Anti-computer Fraud and Abuses Act of 2010 by Lapid, Manuel Lito.
July 8, 2010 – Anti-cybercrime Act of 2010 by Villar, Manny V.
September 22, 2010 – Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2010 by Marcos, Ferdinand “Bongbong.”
February 3, 2011 – Cybersecurity Education Enhancement Act by Defensor-Santiago, Miriam.
February 28, 2011 – Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2011 by Revilla, Jr Ramon.
May 3, 2011 – After that, Mr President, after all those bills proposed on the Cybercrime Act, an Act Defining Cybercrime Providing for Prevention, Investigation and Imposition of Penalties, therefor and other purposes was filed, prepared and submitted jointly by the Committee on Science, Technology, Constitutional Amendments, Revisions of Codes and Laws, Education, Arts and Culture, Justice and Human Rights, Trade and Commerce, Public Information and Mass Media, and Finance, May 3, 2011.
Again, I’m sure you heard the committees that submitted with Senators Antonio Trillanes, Edgardo Angara, Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, Manuel “Lito” Lapid, Manny Villar, Miriam Defensor Santiago, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos and Ramon Revilla as authors.
Per Committee Report Number 30, and recommending its approval in substitution of the Senate bills I mentioned earlier, taking into consideration Senate Resolution 75164 and 254.
May 10, 2011 – Ngayon, Mr President, pagdating po ng May 10, 2011, committee report was calendared for ordinary business. That same day, it was sponsored by Sen Edgardo Angara, chairman of the Committee on Education and Science and Technology.
May 11, 2011 – On May 11, it was transferred from the calendar for ordinary business to the calendar for special orders. Ganoon po ang sistema sa atin para doon sa nakikinig sa atin sa labas, lalo na sa cyberspace.
May 11, 2011 – Sponsorship speech was Sen Angara was followed by co-sponsorship by Sen Loren Legarda and Sen Loren Legarda was made co-author on the same day.
September 12, 2011 – The period of interpellations were open. Interpellations were conducted by Miriam Defensor Santiago and Vicente Sotto III.
December 12, 2011 – Interpellations continued with Sen Vicente Sotto III, Teofisto Guingona III and Aquilino Pimentel III.
December 13, 2011 – Interpellations by Sen Juan Ponce Enrile
And after that Dec 13, 2011, the period of interpellations was closed.
January 24, 2012 – After the Christmas break, there were inquiries conducted by Sen Teofisto Guingona III and Sen Panfilo Lacson during the period of committee and individual amendments and no longer in the period of interpellations.
January 24, 2012 – The period of individual amendments was closed. It was approved on second reading with amendments, lahat na ng amendments na pinag-usapan dito noon na laman ng Senate bill nang lumabas, nandoon na, products of the interpellations in December and onto January.
January 26, 2012 – Printed copies were distributed to the senators.
January 30, 2012 – It was approved on 3rd reading. Those who voted in favor: Pia Cayetano, Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, Chiz Escudero, Gregorio Honasan, Panfilo Lacson, Lito Lapid, Loren Legarda, Bongbong Marcos, Koko Pimentel, Ralph Recto, Ramon Revilla Jr, Vicente Sotto, Manny Villar. There was one who voted against: Sen TG Guingona. There were no abstentions.
January 31, 2012 – This was sent to the House of Representatives requesting for concurrence, inabot po ito nang ilang buwan sapagkat di pa pasado ang House version.
May 30, 2012 – The Senate requested the House of Representatives for a conference on the disagreeing provisions because the House passed it already, designating Senators Angara, Santiago, Estrada, Marcos, Revilla, Trillanes and Villar as its conferees to the bicameral conference committee.
Wala hong Sotto doon sa bicam member!
May 30, 2012 – The House of Representatives accepted the request of the Senate for conference on the disagreeing provisions for Senate Bill 2796 and House Bill 5808. Representatives were Tinga, Yap, Singson Jr, Angara, Rodriguez, Sarmiento, Arenas, Quimbo, Golez, Sarmiento, Arroyo D as the conferees in the bicameral conference committee, May 30, 2012.
June 5, 2012 – The conference committee report submitted to the Senate recommending Senate Bill 2796 in consolidation with House Bill 5808 be approved as reconciled and Sen Angara delivered a sponsorship speech after the bicam so sa bicam ito, ang proseso natin, 2nd reading, 3rd reading, magmi-meet ang House at Senate, pag-uusapan ang disagreeing provisions, pag-uusapan nila, paplantsahin nila, babalik sa Senate, babalik sa House. Pagbalik sa Senate, parehong-pareho na ng House version.
So the committee report, conference committee report was approved by the Senate on June 5.
June 4, 2012 – Approved by the House of Representatives, one day ahead Mr President.
So ang totoo niyan as of June 5, it was already out of the hands of the Senate. It was already enrolled, pinadala sa kinauukulan lalo na sa Pangulo ng Pilipinas.
May mga nagce-claim na ito raw ay retaliation ko for the cyberbullying that I got. Mr President, the cyberbullying attacks I got was on August and September 2012, way, way beyond June 5, na tapos na tapos na sa Senado ito. Sa totoo nga, January 24, wala na sa kamay ng Senate, lumabas na. So it was after my turno en contra that the cyberbullying started, Mr President.
These cyberbullies should not be too presumptious, parang KSP eh, feeling important eh. The Senate will enact a law for them, kokontrahin sila, reretaliate sila, excuse me ah.
May I suggest, para sa kalinawan ng marami at medyo magandang kaisipan, I suggest our colleagues and the public read an online article written in the Wall Street Journal is entitled “Why we are so rude online.” “Online browsing lowers self-control and is linked to higher debt and higher weight” by Elizabeth Bernstein of the Wall Street Journal.
And also, I would like to commend the editorial of the Manila Times today, “Libel and Freedom of Speech.” I suggest our colleagues and the public to also read that instead of your cyberbully whipping boy read it into the records of the Senate.
I thank you. I hope I am able to set the record straight para matigil ang pagbibintang at paranoia ng iba nating kababayan. – Rappler.com”
Johnny Lin says
Sabi ni Sotto:
dating daw sa mga netizens ng “insertion” ay inismuggle.
Mr Sotto, ikaw ang mali ng interpretasyon. Ikaw ang nagkamali ng sapantaha at intindi.
Sa amin ang “insertion”, bagong panukala na isiningit sa unang(orihinal) panukala na kakaunti lamang ang nakalaalam bago naging batas at hindi dumaan sa masinsinan pagdibati ng dalawang kapulungan.
Isa pa, yung nakalahad sa isinigit na panukala ang defecto, kaya yung taong nagsingit ang maysala. Hindi lamang proseso ng pagsingit ang mali, mas importanteng mali ang nilalaman ng isiningit.
File, the Withdraw? Withdraw, then File? Ano ito? Walang stability ang thinking!
Eh, kung sabihin ni president “Ah, kamali ako! I really now believe I don’t like libel in that Cybercrime Law. I want it removed!” Sotto, immediately Files again to abolish libel?
The the SC rules, it is “O.K.”, the law is constitutional! Sotto again Withdraw his Filing?
Ano ito? Then the SC reconsiders its ruling by a new voting, declares the law really unconstitutional as a violation of Free Speech and of the PRESS! Sotto hurridely, Files what he Withdrew, and now stays at the filing Section, waiting for any more filings and withdrawals [ just in case! ]. He never learns.
For someone who has made a name for himself as a comedian, Senator Sotto is displaying an annoying propensity for drama.
No more mudslinging from Sen T Sotto?
He backtracks on his promised Bill to file to remove Online Libel from Cybercrime Prevention Act 2012.
While Sen T Sotto withdraws his Oct 5 Bill, “Senator Loren Legarda filed a bill to repeal the libel and takedown provisions of Republic Act No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.”
Test case for Sen T Sotto to use his Cybercrime Prevention Act against US Base mainstream media with Online website presence.
“Last week Philippine Senate majority leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III admitted that he was behind a last-minute amendment to a cybercrime law that came into effect on Wednesday. Offenders face up to 12 years in prison if they “cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person” through “malicious imputation” online.”
Sen T Sotto still currently denies any last minute or “midnight-insertion” to the Cybercrime Prevention Act 2012.
vander anievas says
i suggest this update must be in the most recent(latest) posts…
Sen T Sotto’s Memoir on the House history of Cybercrime Prevention Act 2012.
As of this comment submission, there are no Senate records available of Sen T Sotto’s Oct 5 Bill and Withdrawal of same Bill today. Not even his privilege speech today about this Cybercrime Prevention Act 2012 were available at the Senate Archives (2012) – www senate gov ph/news asp?year=2012#10