Stopping the Cybercrime Law

Many Filipinos, especially media men and netizens, have expressed a sigh of relief after the Supreme Court stopped the implementation of Republic Act No. 10175, otherwise known as the “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012,” which they perceived as repressive and violating their constitutional rights to free expression, free speech and freedom of the press.
After the regular en banc session of the justices, the High Court voted unanimously to issue the temporary restraining order (TRO) against R.A. 10175 which stays the enforcement of the controversial law by at least 120 days.
No other law in modern history has attracted so much opposition than the Cybercrime Law. A total of 18 groups representing the media, lawyers and other sectors, opposed the new law and filed their respective petitions before the highest court of the land, citing various reasons. The petitioners later were joined by several groups of bloggers, students and media groups in their rallies before the High Court and Congress to dramatize their protest against the new law.
Among the petitioners were the media group ALAB headed by lawyer-blogger Berteni Causing, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), the Center for International Law (Centerlaw) and the Human Rights Watch, the National Press Club (NPC), Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance (PIFA), and Bayan Muna Party-list Rep. Teddy Casino.
While these various groups hailed their initial victory against the Cybercrime Law, they continue to press for the striking down of the law by the High Court, claiming that it is unconstitutional because of the provisions allegedly which are not in accordance with the 1987 Constitution. They argued the provision of the law on cyber libel is unconstitutional because it allegedly infringes on the right of the people to express their sentiment. They also said that some provisions of the law are questionable because they are allegedly violative of the freedom of expression, due process, equal protection, right to privacy and correspondence and right to unreasonable searches and seizures. They further argued that the said provisions are criminalizing libel on the internet, empowering the authorities to collect, examine, confiscate and block computer data, as well as authorizing the Department of Justice to block access to computer data with prima facie or with blatant violation of the provision of the law. 
For sure, all concerned parties will be called by the Supreme Court to a hearing on the issues, pros and cons, in the coming months. Prior to this, government leaders and Congress will revisit the law in consultations with the public, the legal professionals and others affected by the law. Let all these parties come down to work and study what should be studied, so that when the final reckoning comes, a wise decision will be reached. Discussions on cyber space and the academe should continue untrammelled in the spirit emblazoned in the Philippine Constitution.