Hacktivists Made an Impression Before the Hearing

On January 14, 2013, the  “Hacktivists” group Anonymous Philippines defaced the website of the National Food Authority (NFA) in order to draw attention to the CyberCrime Law. This is not the first website that the group have defaced. A number of activists or petitioners have pointed out that this law would make it easier for the government to harass the people who are criticizing the government through electronic means. The government can also use the electronic media in order to monitor activists. Some say this law was made due to the allegations against some of the nation’s official’s, specifically Senator Vicente “Tito” Sotto. The said senator was involved with his very controversial speech. He was charged of plagiarism from that speech of his.

The issue on the Philippine’s CyberCrime Prevention Act of 2012, or Republic Act No. 10175 has really escalated as of late. Anonymous Philippines have said that this law threatens the freedom of expression for the Philippine nation. The law became controversial because it criminalizes online libel, among other things, angering journalists who have been campaigning for the decriminalization of libel.

The Anonymous Philippine’s group have been known to be active in protesting if they feel that the Filipino’s rights are being threatened.

The Operation

Anonymous Philippines have an operation called “#OccupyPhilippines”. The group has left messages in hacked pages saying “Protect our Right to Freedom of Expression. The message also read in part “1987 Philippine Constitution. Article III, Section 4 states that ‘NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED ABRIDGING the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. What happened to the law? Are all laws meant to be broken? Are they made to fool people, deprive them of their rights in exchange for what we believe as ‘Heavens for Politicians’? Some say we are against the law because it would hinder our ‘criminal activities,’ but WE do not oppose the said law in any way, if it is  for the greater good.”

Anonymous Philippines have always used electronic media as a means of protesting and giving the message to the government on what they have done wrong.

The Blackscreens

When this law first became so controversial, it made headlines in the news of multiple TV stations, radio stations and newspapers. many Facebook and Twitter users in the Philippines and the portals of some media organizations replaced their profile pictures with black screens in protest of the new law.

On October 2012, Supreme Court ordered that the implementation of the Cybercrime law would be suspended up until Feb. 6 and set a Jan. 15 hearing of petitioners’ arguments. 10 minutes are given for each petitioner. While the new law against cybercrime is suspended, authorities may deal with related cases using existing laws such as RA 8792 or the  E-Commerce Act of 2000, RA 9995 or the Anti-Photo and Voyeurism Act of 2009, RA 9725 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009, RA 9208 or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, RA 8484 or the Access Device Regulation Act of 1998 and RA 4200 or the Anti-Wiretapping Law.

A primer on cybercrimes committed in the country, which was released by the Department of Justice (DOJ), said that nearly nine out of 10 Filipino Internet users have been victimized by “cybercrime”. The primer was prepared by the DOJ as part of its advocacy program to prevent abuses in cyberspace.

Petitioners said that this law violates citizens’ constitutional rights, including freedom of speech, right to privacy, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, due process, equal protection and protection against double jeopardy.