­

Attorneys of the Philippines Legal News

Welcome to our legal news pages. Here is where we provide updates about what's happening in Philippines legal news, and publish helpful articles and tips for Pinoys researching legal matters.

Senator Eyes To Penalize Facebook To End Fake News Proliferation

Facebook is a social media platform with many purposes. Aside from connecting with loved ones or catching up with friends, it is also a place for speaking one's mind and obtaining a wealth of information. However, it comes with a caveat because it has recently become a breeding ground for half-baked stories and fake news. Aside from fake news, keyboard warriors are also on the look out for someone who is on the other side of the fence. 

Fake news is said to spread digital mayhem. With multitudes of users sharing fake news every day, a senator just cannot turn a blind eye on it. Senator Francis Pangilinan wants to put a lid on spreading fake news by penalizing Facebook because of allowing misinformation to mislead users. 

Is this even a viable option? The idea is tongue-in-cheek considering the fact that any user can feign everything so long as they hide behind the Facebook curtains. Simply put, if you left your door open and a burglar broke into your house, would you pin the blame on your door when burglary occurred because of human error? 

Fake news exists because people continue to read them. At the end of the day, it all boils down to our personal choices. It is not just Facebook, it can be the demons squatting on our shoulder. The thought of penalizing Facebook is so far-fetched. Educate users about social media etiquette before anything else. Let Republic Act 10175 or Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 be a reminder to think before you click.

PUNISHABLE ACTS

SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. — The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable under this Act:

(a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems:

(1) Illegal Access. – The access to the whole or any part of a computer system without right.

(2) Illegal Interception. – The interception made by technical means without right of any non-public transmission of computer data to, from, or within a computer system including electromagnetic emissions from a computer system carrying such computer data.

(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.

(4) System Interference. — The intentional alteration or reckless hindering or interference with the functioning of a computer or computer network by inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer data or program, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right or authority, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.

(5) Misuse of Devices.

(i) The use, production, sale, procurement, importation, distribution, or otherwise making available, without right, of:

(aa) A device, including a computer program, designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this Act; or

(bb) A computer password, access code, or similar data by which the whole or any part of a computer system is capable of being accessed with intent that it be used for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this Act.

(ii) The possession of an item referred to in paragraphs 5(i)(aa) or (bb) above with intent to use said devices for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this section.

(6) Cyber-squatting. – The acquisition of a domain name over the internet in bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy reputation, and deprive others from registering the same, if such a domain name is:

(i) Similar, identical, or confusingly similar to an existing trademark registered with the appropriate government agency at the time of the domain name registration:

(ii) Identical or in any way similar with the name of a person other than the registrant, in case of a personal name; and

(iii) Acquired without right or with intellectual property interests in it.

(b) Computer-related Offenses:

(1) Computer-related Forgery. —

(i) The input, alteration, or deletion of any computer data without right resulting in inauthentic data with the intent that it be considered or acted upon for legal purposes as if it were authentic, regardless whether or not the data is directly readable and intelligible; or

(ii) The act of knowingly using computer data which is the product of computer-related forgery as defined herein, for the purpose of perpetuating a fraudulent or dishonest design.

(2) Computer-related Fraud. — The unauthorized input, alteration, or deletion of computer data or program or interference in the functioning of a computer system, causing damage thereby with fraudulent intent: Provided, That if nodamage has yet been caused, the penalty imposable shall be one (1) degree lower.

(3) Computer-related Identity Theft. – The intentional acquisition, use, misuse, transfer, possession, alteration or deletion of identifying information belonging to another, whether natural or juridical, without right: Provided, That if no damage has yet been caused, the penalty imposable shall be one (1) degree lower.

(c) Content-related Offenses:

(1) Cybersex. — The willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favor or consideration.

(2) Child Pornography. — The unlawful or prohibited acts defined and punishable by Republic Act No. 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009, committed through a computer system: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be (1) one degree higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775.

(3) Unsolicited Commercial Communications. — The transmission of commercial electronic communication with the use of computer system which seek to advertise, sell, or offer for sale products and services are prohibited unless:

(i) There is prior affirmative consent from the recipient; or

(ii) The primary intent of the communication is for service and/or administrative announcements from the sender to its existing users, subscribers or customers; or

(iii) The following conditions are present:

(aa) The commercial electronic communication contains a simple, valid, and reliable way for the recipient to reject. receipt of further commercial electronic messages (opt-out) from the same source;

(bb) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely disguise the source of the electronic message; and

(cc) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely include misleading information in any part of the message in order to induce the recipients to read the message.

(4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.

What Does An Anti-Duterte Ad Reveal?

When you decide to aspire for the highest political seat in the country, expect people to put you under the microscope for public scrutiny. Smear campaigns and black propaganda are all part of the political culture in the country. While we are only a few days away from the Presidential Election happening on May 9, word war never ceases. As they say, "it ain't over 'til it's over". Criticisms are hurled up against a presidential candidate who tops the pre-election survey. A blunt example is the anti-Duterte ad involving children. The 30-second ad highlights the negative side of Rodrigo Duterte and the reasons why he is unworthy of becoming the next President of the Philippines. We get it. It is obvious that the TV ad is against Duterte's presidency. However, as we dissect the TV ad, it slowly unravels who we are as voters, as Pinoys. While the ad is deemed to be cringe-worthy, it does not necessarily take a Duterte supporter to realize that something is really wrong with it. Is it simply because the children were used in the making of the video? Is it due to the fact that the campaign was putting Duterte in a bad light? No. The TV ad slowly uncovers what we are as a person. It can be a Freudian slip, a revelation of our subconscious feelings, but one thing is for sure: we reveal our true selves without even knowing it. It is purely paradoxical.Sure this ad does not necessarily change voter perception, but it reveals the values that shaped us as humans. A Duterte supporter might be surprised by his or her reaction to the TV ad not because it is the exact opposite of the dominant qualities of the presidential candidate they are supporting, but it is even more surprising to know that a supporter cheering or clapping for Duterte's cuss words is also against indecency of the TV ad. With Duterte's popularity, we already know what this ad is all about, but the mixed reactions clearly show both our negative and positive traits as Pinoys. We are unified because we are against the idea of using children to fulfill a politician's self-serving biases. On the other hand, we also have double standards of morality. While political goals may be accomplished eventually, nobody can have their cake and eat it too. (credits to the owner of this video)

The Truth Behind Rodrigo Duterte’s Rape Remark

A rape remark (regarded by some as a bad joke) by presidential aspirant Rodrigo Duterte earned the ire of netizens. The video clip of the April 12 campaign rally at the Amoranto Sports Complex in Quezon City was posted on Saturday, April 16. In the video, Duterte is in the middle of a speech and due to the remark, the video went viral. The statement was: “Ang nagpasok sa isip ko, nirape nila, pinagpilahan nila doon. Nagalit ako kasi nirape, oo isa rin 'yun . Pero napakaganda, dapat ang mayor muna ang mauna. Sayang. There are mixed reactions, most of which are negative. Is the bad remark enough to pass judgment to Rodrigo Duterte? Is this really the truth? The speech was about an incident that dates back in 1989. It was a hostage-taking by Felipe Pugoy, a Davao City Police office inmate. The missionaries who visited the DCPO were held hostage and one of the missionaries was Jacquelline Hamill, an Australian woman. The video clip of the speech drew flak and it was focused on the rape joke! Was it really a joke? “The truth is the truth even if no one believes it. A lie is a lie, even if everyone believes it”. On Sunday, April 17, Duterte was interviewed to clarify what had really transpired during the 1989 hostage-taking incident. Here’s the video of the full interview (credits to the owner of the video):

­