Cybercrime Law Essay
The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is the first jurisprudence in the Philippines which specifically criminalizes computing machine offense. which prior to the transition of the jurisprudence had no strong legal case in point in Philippine law. While Torahs such as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 ( Republic Act No. 8792 regulated certain computer-related activities. these Torahs did non supply a legal footing for criminalizing offenses committed on a computing machine in general: for illustration. Onel de Guzman. the computing machine coder charged with supposedly composing the ILOVEYOU computing machine worm. was finally non prosecuted by Philippine governments due to a deficiency of legal footing for him to be charged under bing Philippine Torahs at the clip of his apprehension. The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. officially recorded as Republic Act No. 10175. is a jurisprudence in the Philippines approved on 12 September 2012. It aims to turn to legal issues refering on-line interactions and the Internet in the Philippines.
Among the cybercrime offenses included in the measure are cybersquatting. cybersex. kid erotica. individuality larceny. illegal entree to informations and libel. The Act. divided into 31 subdivisions split across eight chapters. criminalizes several types of discourtesies. including illegal entree ( choping ) . informations intervention. device abuse. cybersquatting. computer-related discourtesies such as computing machine fraud. content-related discourtesies such as cybersex and Spam. and other discourtesies. The jurisprudence besides reaffirms bing Torahs against kid erotica. an discourtesy under Republic Act No. 9779 ( the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 ) . and libel. an discourtesy under Section 355 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines. besides criminalizing them when committed utilizing a computing machine system. Finally. the Act provides for a “catch-all” clause. wherein all discourtesies presently punishable under the Revised Penal Code are similarly punishable under the Act when committed utilizing a computing machine. with matching stricter punishments than if the offenses were punishable under the Revised Penal Code entirely.
The Act has cosmopolitan legal power: its commissariats apply to all Filipino subjects irrespective of the topographic point of committee. Jurisdiction besides lies when a punishable act is either committed within the Philippines. whether the mistaking device is entirely or partially situated in the Philippines. or whether harm was done to any natural or juridical individual who at the clip of committee was within the Philippines. Regional Trial Courts shall hold legal power over instances affecting misdemeanors of the Act. A takedown clause is included in the Act. authorising the Department of Justice to curtail and/or demand the remotion of content found to be contrary to the commissariats of the Act. without the demand for a tribunal order. This proviso. originally non included in earlier loops of the Act as it was being deliberated through Congress. was inserted during Senate deliberations on May 31. 2012. [ 6 ] Complementary to the takedown clause is a clause mandating the keeping of informations on computing machine waiters for six months after the day of the month of dealing. which may be extended for another six months should jurisprudence enforcement governments request it.
The Act besides mandates the National Bureau of Investigation and the Philippine National Police to form a cybercrime unit. staffed by particular research workers whose duty will be to entirely manage instances refering to misdemeanors of the Act. under the supervising of the Department of Justice. The unit is empowered to. among others. roll up real-time traffic informations from Internet service suppliers with due cause. necessitate the revelation of computing machine informations within 72 hours after reception of a tribunal warrant from a service supplier. and behavior hunts and ictuss of computing machine informations and equipment. It besides mandates the constitution of particular “cybercrime courts” which will manage instances affecting cybercrime discourtesies ( discourtesies enumerated in Section 4 ( a ) of the Act )