Below are the complete excerpts from the Journal of the Senate sessions, available through the senate website, www.senate.gov.ph, collating the deliberations on Senate Bill No. 2796, titled “AN ACT DEFINING CYBERCRIME, PROVIDING FOR PREVENTION, INVESTIGATION AND IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES” on the Senate floor. It was reconciled with House Bill No. 5808 as reported by the Bicameral Conference Committee on June 5, 2012 in the Senate.

 ____________________________________________________________

Sources:

Fifteenth Congress, First Regular Session

Senate Journal, May 11, 2011

Fifteenth Congress, Second Regular Session

Senate Journal, September 12, 2011
Senate Journal, December 13, 2011
Senate Journal, December 12, 2011
Senate Journal, January 24, 2012
Senate Journal, January 30, 2012
Senate Journal, June 5, 2012

 ____________________________________________________________


From the Senate Journal, May 11, 2011

SPECIAL ORDER

Upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body approved the transfer of Committee Report No. 30 on Senate Bill No. 2796 from the Calendar for Ordinary Business to the Calendar for Special Orders.

COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 30 ON SENATE BILL NO. 2796

Upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body considered, on Second Reading, Senate Bill No. 2796 (Committee Report No. 30), entitled

AN ACT DEFINING CYBERCRIME, PROVIDING FOR PREVENTION, INVESTIGATION AND IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Pursuant to Section 67, Rule XXIII of the Rules of the Senate, with the permission of the Body, upon motion of Senator Sotto, only the title of the bill was read without prejudice to the insertion of its full text into the Record of the Senate.

Thereupon, the Chair recognized Senator Angara for the, sponsorship.

SPONSORSHIP SPEECH OF SENATOR ANGARA

In presenting Senate Bill No. 2796 for plenary deliberation, Senator Angara delivered the following speech:

QUASHING CYBERCRIME

The Philippines gained notoriety in May 2000 when one of the most destructive computer viruses of all time was traced to a then 23-year-old computer science dropout in Manila. In just one day, that virus spread to 55 million computers around the world and wreaked havoc to software businesses worth US$10 billion.

But there was another cause for notoriety. While investigators were able to arrest Onel de Guzman, the alleged creator of the computer worm, he could not be prosecuted because at that time we still had no law governing malware and related activities. In short, we were unable to bring to justice a wrongdoer who caused incalculable harm to millions of people and companies around the world.

We tried to remedy the situation. In July 2000, we enacted the E-Commerce Law to protect electronic transactions. Eleven years have passed—and that is a lot of time, in the internet age, more than enough time for new threats and dangers to have emerged in the Internet. The rapid rate of technological development has outpaced our capacity to effectively police a borderless realm.

Rampant cybercrime

The Internet was born in the early ’60s. But it is only in late ’90s that the necessary implementing regulations were drawn up.

At this juncture, Senate President Pro Tempore, Ejercito Estrada relinquished the Chair to Senator Zubiri.

Today, the Internet is an indispensable tool, having revolutionized the way we learn, the way we interact, the way we govern and manage businesses, the way we even entertain ourselves. It has liberated communication and different kinds of transactions from constraints of time and geography. Those are examples of the Internet usage.

This freedom, however, comes with a cost. Internet usage – as well as abuse – has skyrocketed in the absence of any appropriate legal framework.

The ubiquity of the Internet has given rise to the proliferation of cybercrime – which spans hacking, identity theft, spamming, phishing, denial-of-service (“DoS”) attacks, malware, and child pornography and cyber prostitution. This can be attributed to the inherent lack of security of the Internet architecture and the relative anonymity of users.

The cybercrime industry has grown so huge. It is estimated that it has cost almost SI trillion losses from intellectual property and data theft in one year alone, in 2008. That is almost three years ago. We can imagine the tremendous increase in losses since then.

Various studies show how extensive cybercrime’s reach is IBM, in its latest report released in March, said that 2010 had the largest number of vulnerability disclosures. This means attacks on computer networks throughout the computer world. This has significant implications on managing large IT networks. More vulnerabilities mean more time spent on fixing and securing compromised systems. IBM added that financial institutions are the favorite of phishing, or attempts to acquire sensitive information by pretending to be a credible entity.

Furthermore, the U.S. Internet Crime Complaint Center (ICCC) disclosed that it received in 2010 the second highest number of complaints since its inception about ten years ago. Complaints totaled 303,809 and averaged 25,317 per month.

Just last month, the consumer electronics giant Sony suffered two massive security breaches. First, it discovered that the Playstation Network was hacked which resulted in the theft of personal information including credit card details of approximately 77 million users worldwide. Subsequently, they also found out that the second attack occurred and the target was their online entertainment PC games network, and data from another 25 million accounts have been stolen.

Symantec, a leading security software firm, revealed in its report that nearly two-thirds or 65 percent of adults globally have been a victim of cybercrime. In our country, about 87 percent of Filipinos have fallen to a variety of attacks including malware invasion, online or phishing scams and “sexual predation.”

There are approximately 30 million Filipinos who use the Internet regularly. Undetected cybercrime attacks translate to an average loss over 28 days of about P12,208. Each one does not realize he or she is losing P12,000 over a period of 28 days as a result of cybercrime. As Internet penetration deepens, the potential market for cybercrime will naturally enlarge and expand.

Gaps to fill

Cybercrime is a sinister and a silent epidemic. People are aware that it is happening or have even experienced it but are often uncertain and baffled how to deal with it. Which agency in government should cybercrime victims report to— the police, the NBI, the DTI or the bank and the online seller? Who do we really turn to if a cybercrime has been committed against us?

At bottom, we lack the framework that adequately defines cybercrime and prescribes punishment for it. The United Nations Country Report on Cybercrime in the Philippines notes that our E-Commerce Law is inadequate to deal with all forms of cybercrime enumerated in the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime such as fraud and pornography.

But apart from the issue of definition, enforcement also poses a great challenge. Cyber­crime requires the proper technical training of law enforcers in identifying intangible evidence of its commission.

Cyber law is more complicated than traditional law for very obvious reasons because it is based on technology. Hence, we need a law that can satisfactorily respond to such a dynamic and fast-growing threat.

Filling the void

The Act that we are proposing will fill that legislative void. It will punish the following: offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems: computer-related offenses such as forgery and fraud; and content-related offenses like cybersex, child pornography and unsolicited commercial communications.

The Cybercrime Prevention Act also covers mobile devices— an emerging target of cyber threats. IBM, for instance, noted that related attacks are still limited because mobile devices do not yet provide the same financial opportunities as personal computer machines. But when e-commerce on our mobile phones gets bigger every year, so will cybercrime threats to mobile devices.

We need to hold liable not only individual perpetrators but also corporate organizations that knowingly abet cybercrime.

In closing, I cannot overemphasize one fundamental principle: that the prevention of cybercrime is not a one-man or one-country phenomenon. It requires international collaboration. We, alone, cannot prevent the commission of cybercrime. Cybercrime recognizes no national boundaries and therefore cooperation with other countries is essential to the enforcement of any Cybercrime Act.

Cybercrime poses a real and present danger to global efforts to foster a global information economy. We must not let this silent epidemic continue to wreck havoc on our people. Five hundred thousand or half a million people work in the BPO sector. The BPO is under threat because of the lack of legal framework for controlling cybercrime.

COSPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF SENATOR LEGARDA

Rising to cosponsor the measure, Senator Legarda pointed out that with the advancement in the Internet and other technological media allowing communication to cross geographic and national borders in a matter of seconds, everything is now reachable with a click of a button. She stated that computers have evolved into a versatile instrument in modern society, noting that networks of computers have become essential in maintaining and operating a vital infrastructure. The use of computers, she said, in accessing the Internet enabled linkages among individuals and organizations in doing business.

However, she stated that as the information and communications technology rapidly developed, new forms of criminal activities have emerged. Most of these technological advancement, she said, have been utilized by unscrupulous individuals for illegal activities such as computer-related fraud, cybersex and child pornography. Fortunately, she said, the Senate will take action on cybercrimes through the measure to address the need to provide a policy framework, define the covered crimes and the penalties to be imposed thereon.

In closing, Senator Legarda expressed hope that the positive action of the Senate on the measure will ensure a safe cyberspace for the people.

SUSPENSION OF CONSIDERATION OF SENATE BILL NO. 2796

Upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body suspended consideration of the bill.

From the Senate Journal, September 12, 2011

COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 30 ON SENATE BILL NO. 2796
(Continuation)

Upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body resumed consideration, on Second Reading, of Senate Bill No. 2796 (Committee Report No. 30), entitled

AN ACT DEFINING CYBERCRIME, PROVIDING FOR PREVENTION, INVESTIGATION AND IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Senator Sotto stated that the parliamentary status was still the period of interpellations.

Thereupon, the Chair recognized Senator Angara, sponsor of the measure, and Senator Defensor Santiago, for her interpellation.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

Upon motion of Senator Sotto, the session was suspended.

It was 3:36 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 3:54 p.m., the session was resumed.

INTERPELLATION OF SENATOR DEFENSOR SANTIAGO

As regards the procedure she would follow in her interpellation. Senator Defensor Santiago stated that first, she would discuss the background of her questions, in the course of which she might raise a few rhetorical questions, to which no answer would be expected. She said that towards the end, she would repeat the questions and properly notify the Sponsor she was waiting for an answer.

Thereupon, Senator Defensor Santiago explained the background of her questions.

1. Situs of the Offense

Background:

For purposes of determining the situs of the offense, what foreign factors should be considered? In foreign jurisdictions, the situs of an offense of computer criminal activity shall include the location of the computer, the computer storage medium, the computer program, the computer server, computer software, computer equipment, computer system or computer network which is accessed, or where the computer, the computer’s storage medium, computer program, computer software, computer equipment, computer system, computer network or other device used in the offense is situated, or where the actual damage occurs. In August 2000, a certain Onel de Guzman, a Filipino, created the “I LOVE YOU” virus, which caused damages amounting to at least US$5.5 million in the Philippines, Hong Kong, Europe and the United States. How will our jurisdiction treat a situation in the future when a computer program or network is accessed here and the damage crossed Philippine boarders?

Does the Philippines intend to be a party to the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime? Article 22 of the Convention provides:

Article 22 – Jurisdiction

1. Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish jurisdiction over any offence established in accordance with Articles 2 through 11 of this Convention, when the offence is committed:

a. in its territory; or

b. on board a ship flying the flag of that Party; or

c. on board an aircraft registered under the laws of that Party; or

d. by one of its nationals, if the offence is punishable under criminal law where it was committed or if the offence is committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of any State.

2. Each Party may reserve the right not to apply or to apply only in specific cases or conditions the jurisdiction rules laid down in paragraphs 1.b through 1.d of this article or any part thereof.

3. Each Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish jurisdiction over the offences referred to in Article 24, paragraph 1, of this Convention, in cases where an alleged offender is present in its territory and it does not extradite him/her to another Party, solely on the basis of his/her nationality, after a request for extradition.

4. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with domestic law.

5. When more than one Party claims jurisdiction over an alleged offence established in accordance with this Convention, the Parties involved shall, where appropriate, consult with a view to determining the most appropriate jurisdiction for prosecution.

If the Philippines has signified its accession to the Convention, it is bound by the foregoing provisions. What will be the country’s policy in case another country is claiming jurisdiction over the offense?

Asked by Senator Defensor Santiago what factors should be considered for purposes of determining the situs of the offense of cybercrime. Senator Angara replied that some factors were already mentioned, i.e. nationality of the offender, where the computer system is located, or where the actual damage occurs. Any of these factors, he said, can cause the Philippines to take jurisdiction but should a problem arise and another jurisdiction comes in, the third or fifth paragraph of the Budapest Convention would be invoked, in which case, both parties may consult or may decide the matter between them.

Senator Angara disclosed that the Philippines had been invited to the Budapest Convention but that he was not sure if the Executive has made a decision whether to accede to it or not. However, he expressed certainty that once the Cybercrime Act is passed, coordination and collaboration with other countries would be easier because international cooperation is at the heart of said law. He emphasized that international cooperation is essential because cybercrimes cross borders and it is in the mutual interest of the community of nations that the issue of jurisdiction be resolved.

Senator Defensor Santiago asked how the Philippine jurisdiction would treat a situation where a computer program or network accessed in the Philppines causes damage across the country’s borders, as in the case of the “I LOVE YOU” virus that was launched by a Filipino, considering that the Philippines might not accede to the Budapest Convention. Senator Angara clarified that since the accused is a Philippine national, the Philippine courts may take jurisdiction over the case. He agreed to the observation that Philipine jurisdiction would be determined as a rule under the regulations of the Budapest Convention.

2. Definition of the phrase “without right”

Background:

Section 3, paragraph (g) of Senate Bill No. 2796 defines the phrase “without right” as either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law.

The definition of the phrase “without right” is crucial considering that it is a principal element of the following cybercrime offenses punishable under Section 4:

  • Illegal Access;
  • Illegal Interception;
  • Data Interference;
  • System Interference;
  • Misuse of Devices; and
  • Computer-Related Forgery.

As presently defined, offenders may invoke the defense that the element of “without right” is lacking in the guise of invoking any right, or any moral duty. This will make it difficult to prosecute persons committing the foregoing offenses. It is a fundamental principle that the law should be drafted with sufficient specificity and clarity to provide foreseeability as to the act that will be criminalized. Furthermore, the Explanatory Note to the Convention on Cybercrime provides a lengthy rationale for defining the phrase “without right.” Paragraph No. 38 of the Explanatory Note says in part: “Thus, without restricting how parties may implement the concept in their domestic law, it may refer to conduct undertaken without authority (whether legislative, executive, administrative, judicial, contractual or consensual), or conduct that it is otherwise not covered by established domestic law.”

In view of the foregoing, there might be a need to narrowly define “without right.”

Asked whether, at the proper time, he would be amendable to narrowly define “without right” after paragraph 38 of the Explanatory Note to the Convention on Cybercrime, Senator Angara welcomed the proposal, saying that the requirement in criminal offenses is that it must be defined with clarity and specificity.

3. Scope of Sections 4(A) and 4(B):

Sections 4(A) and 4(B) of the Act define offenses against confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems and computed related offenses. Said offenses apply to computer data and computer, which are defined in Section 3 as follows:

d) Computer System – means any device or group of interconnected or related devices, one or more of which, pursuant to a program, performs automatic processing of data. It covers any type of computer device including devices with data processing capabilities like mobile phones and also computer networks. The device consisting of hardware and software may include input, output and storage facilities which may stand alone or be connected in a network or other similar devices. It also includes computer-data storage devices or medium.

e) Computer Data – refers to any representation of facts, information, or concepts in a form suitable for processing in a computer system including a program suitable to cause a computer system to perform a function and includes electronic documents and/or electronic data messages

The Act is clear that owners of computer systems or data are protected from hacking or interference as criminalized in Sections 4(A) and (B).

Asked if Sections 4(A) and (B) apply to online programs, emails and social networks, Senator Angara replied in the affirmative. He explained that the provision on data interference goes against the crime of destroying computer data or programs; while hacking or illegal access to email destroys the integrity of a computer system. He confirmed that a person would be charged with hacking or interfering with online programs, emails and social networks under Section 4(A) and (B) of the Act.

On the concern that this might be regarded as censorship and limitation of freedom of expression, Senator Angara stated that indeed, it is a delicate balance Congresss has to tread. He cautioned that the Members might find the problem more acute in sub­sequent sections that authorize, for instance, security and police authorities to intercept messages, in light of the intrusion of the New of the World into private communications that prompted an investigation by the British parliament. He stated that invasion of privacy is a crime but when authorized personnel listen and intercept messages, it would be under strict conditions.

4. Definition of Illegal Access:

The definition of “illegal access” in Section 4(A) (1) is too broad. Will ink refilling be considered as illegal access? An ink cartridge is part of a computer system which usually has a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags installed by the manufacturer so that the manufacturer can control/make exclusive the ink supply and refilling. When one goes to a generic ink refilling station, the RFID tags arc disabled.

Will cellphone or telecommunication repairs performed by establishments other than the manufaturer [sic], for example, Nokia or Apple Center, accredited Sony Centers, constitute illegal access? Although repealed, we should still be guided by the definition of “hacking” and “piracy” under Republic Act No. 8792, also known as the Electronic Commerce Act, particularly Section 33 in terms of narrowing the scope of international and unauthorized access.

Asked if ink refilling would be considered as illegal access when the RFID tags are disabled, Senator Angara stated that it does not constitute a crime because it is done with the consent of the owner. Similarly, he stated that a cellphone repair man would not be able to repair a broken cellphone without the consent of its owner. He welcomed the proposal to narrow the scope of intentional and unauthorized access, saying that the definition in the E-Commerce Act would be adopted in Section 4(A)(1).

5. Computer-Related Fraud:

On the offense of “computer-related fraud” in Section 4(B) (2), should the intent of procuring an economic benefit or perpetuation of a fraudulent activity be an element of the offense? Damage and fraudulent intent should be sufficient regardless of whether or not there is an economic benefit. It is possible that the intention of computer-related fraud is not economic gain but destruction. “Perpetuation of fraudulent activity’” connotes a series of action. It should be sufficient that the perpetrator in one act shows fraudulent intent.

Asked whether he would be amenable to an amendment, at the proper time, so that the intent of procuring an economic benefit for the perpetuation of fraudulent activities would no longer be an element of the offense of computer-related fraud, Senator Angara replied in the affirmative. He agreed that economic benefit is not an element of the crime and that fraud and intent to cause damage is sufficient.

6. Definition of Cybersex

Section 4(C)(1) of the Act punishes cybersex which is committed by “any person who establishes, maintains or controls, directly or indirectly, any operation for sexual activity or arousal with the aid or through the use of a computer system, for a favor or consideration.”

This offense is not included in the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. What does “any operation for sexual activity or arousal” mean? This is vague especially considering that arousal is subjective. Does this mean that the intent of the offender is to create “arousal or sexual activity” should be established? Is the operation of an online men’s magazine site covered under this section?

In light of the constitutional guarantee on freedom of expression, the Supreme Court in Gonzales vs. Katigbak made a lengthy pronouncement on obscenity. I will simply make some choices based on what I think are significant to our debate this afternoon.

“xxx Implicit in the history of the first amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance.”

We have not accepted this as a textbook definition of obscenity. But the Court immediately added, “There is, however, some difficulty in determining what is obscene.” And then, it noted that this is the prevailing test: “Whether to the average person. applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest.” The U.S. Supreme Court was quoted by the Philippine Supreme Court:

“xxx sex and obscenity are not synonymous; obscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest.”

There appears to be a need to revisit the definition of “cybersex” under Section 4(C.1) of the Act, especilly [sic] considering that it is not mentioned in the Cybercrime Convention.

In reaction, Senator Angara stated that the issue of obscenity is a very well discussed but controversial topic in constitutional law as law students know. He noted that sex is depicted in art, literature, etc.; but obscenity is utterly prohibited.

The crux of the problem, Senator Angara said, is determining what is obscene. He noted that the Supreme Court has provided the standard, it is something that offends the community standards and that it has absolutely no social significance but appeals only to the prurient interest of people. He agreed to the proposal to redefine the provision at the proper time.

7. Unsolicited Commercial Communications in Section 4(C)(3)

This offense is not included in the Budapest Convention. Although there is an ongoing concern against receiving spams or unsolicited commercial e-mails sent in bulk through the computer or telecommunication network, Section 4(C)(3) is too general in the sense it can include a simple email from one person to another person, wherein the sender offers to sell his house or car to the receiver. Therefore, to avoid such acts of injustice, Section 4(C)(3) should be narrowed.

Senator Angara accepted the recommendation as he clarified that what the bill covers is unsolicited emails in bulk.

8. Real-Time Collection of Computer Data:

Section 9 authorizes law enforcement authorities to collect or record traffic data. It reads:

  • Sec. 9. Real-time Collection of Computer Data. — Law enforcement authorities, with due cause and upon securing a court warrant, shall be authorized to collect or record by technical or electronic means, and service providers are required to collect or record by technical or electronic means, and/or to cooperate and assist law enforcement authorities in the collection or recording of, traffic date, in real-time, associated with specified communications transmitted by means of a computer system.

Section 9 lacks parameters to insure that the authority granted will not be abused by the law enforcement authorities. Republic Act No. 4200, also known as the “Anti-Wire Tapping Law,” specifically Section 3, may serve as a guide in setting the parameters for Section 9 of the bill on cybercrime. A proviso in Section 3 of the Anti-Wire Tapping law states:

Provided, That such written order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce and a showing: (1) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated hereinabove has been committed or is being committed or is about to be committed: xxxxx (2) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any of such crimes; and (3) that there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence.

As to whether certain provisions of Section 3 of the Anti-Wire Tapping Law may be adopted, if useful, in order to set specific parameters that will prevent abuse by law enforcement authorities in the exercise of authority that is granted under Section 9 of the bill. Senator Angara agreed in principle that the three conditions required under the Anti-Wire Tapping Law should be adopted as these are good safeguards and protection against violations of rights of citizens. But he expressed reservation that instead of a court approval, the approval must be secured from a government administrative or executive officer, because based on experience with the Anti-Money Laundering Act that requires similar conditions in the opening of a bank account, by the time the search was undertaken, the culprit or potential violator had already been alerted. While recognizing that the same risk exists if the approval is required from an executive or administrative officer rather than a judge, he said that because cybercrime is a fast-

moving, dynamic offense committed swiftly and more often, almost unseen, the need to gather evidence swiftly is also a great concern.

Senator Defensor Santiago agreed thereto, noting that there might be a leakage of confidential information even when court authorization is required because there are many people who have access to the information, for instance, the receiving clerk, the clerk of court, the court sheriff, the stenographer and even the judge, as in the case an administrative paralegal officer. She asserted that the law should be written so tightly that in the custody of information, its integrity and confidentiality should never become vulnerable. She said that during the period of amendments, she would try to put in a provision to achieve what appears to be an extremely difficult procedure in a culture of corruption.

9. Corporate Liability

Under corporate liability in Section 8, the following bases for liability may be too broad: a) a power of representation; b) an authority to exercise control. Does this include any agent or representative of the company? Does the “authority to exercise control” mean the power to hire and fire? Or does a majority stockholder, or group of persons holding the majority shares of stock in a company, becomes responsible for the acts of the corporation?

Asked whether Section 8 would include any agent or representative of the company, Senator Angara replied that the bill would not cover an agent or representative in a simple capacity. He explained that what is envisioned under the provision is that the liability lies in a corporate officer authorized to bind the corporation and in this case “bind” would include the authority to hire and fire and not simply to act in representation of the corporation.

Asked if the “authority to exercise control” means the power to hire and fire or if the majority stockholder or a group of persons holding the majority shares of stocks in a company ought to be responsible for the acts of the corporation, Senator Angara replied that it is not necessarily so because the ultimate test control is the ability to hire and fire. However, he posited that control also implies a broader scope of authority that can include the management of the business and the power to bind the corporation through his/her acts. He clarified that although the one who hires and fires exercises the power of control, he/she must also perform an executive function. He said that it is not enough that he/she is a majority owner but that he/she must also be an executive officer of the corporation.

Asked if the authority to control as defined by the Supreme Court, therefore means the power to alter, modify, nullify or set aside the action of the subordinate, Senator Angara replied in the affirmative. On the question of whether the authority to exercise control means that a majority stockholder or a group of person holding the majority shares of stock in a company is responsible for the acts of the corporation, Senator Angara replied that it not necessarily so, except or unless that majority owner or that group of shareholders wielding majority control also act in executive capacity. He explained that what the provision criminalizes is the act of an actor who is actively managing the corporation and not the owners who are only passive actors.

Senator Defensor Santiago stated that she was glad Senator Angara agreed with her view that the bases for liability under Section 8 of the bill are too broad and that there is a need to lighten the definition of terms. Senator Angara said that he fully subscribed to the idea that a criminal law should have a tighter definition of what constitutes the crime, how the crime is committed, and who are responsible for the crime.

INTERPELLATION OF SENATOR SOTTO

Asked by Senator Sotto what provisions would apply if the online crime did not originate from the Philippines, Senator Angara replied that if the cybercrime originated elsewhere but the damage was inflicted on a computer system in the Philippines, the Philippines can justifiably assert jurisdiction over the same. Nonetheless, he clarified that depending on the law of the country where the crime was initiated, it may also theoretically have jurisdiction over the person or the defendant because of his/her physical presence. Should there be a problem of conflicting jurisdiction between two countries over the same crime, he said that the bill provides that international cooperation and consultations must take place immediately because by their very nature, cybercrimes happen unseen over a borderless space, therefore, international cooperation is imperative and essential to the enforcement of the law.

Asked when the Budapest Convention comes in, Senator Angara said that said Convention will come in merely as a guide because the Philippines is not yet a party to it.

On whether the Philippines intends to be a party to the Budapest Convention or if it was pursuing international treaties or bilateral or multilateral agreements on cybercrimes, Senator Angara said that it would be desirable for the country to do that but as of the moment, he had no inkling at all whether the Philippine government would accede to the Budapest Convention.

Senator Sotto stated that the bill provides for a list of acts that constitute cybercrimes, including but not limited to the following: offenses against confidentiality, integrity, reliability of computer data, illegal access, illegal possession, computer-related offenses, computer-related forgery, computer-related fraud, cybersex, child pornography, unsolicited commercial communications, spamming, aiding or abetting commission of cyber crime, attempt in the commission of cyber crime, among others.

Senator Sotto asked whether it is possible to include cybersquatting as one of the punishable offenses under the Act, as he recalled that he filed such a bill in the 12th Congress. He explained that cybersquatting refers to an act whereby somebody acquires a domain name before the legitimate owner or trademark holder can do so. He narrated that he sought to acquire the domain name titosotto.com and he was surprised to learn that someone else was already using it and that individual, in fact, asked him for a huge amount of money in return for the right to use the same. He disclosed that Senator Legarda was also a victim of this so-called cybersquatting.

At this juncture, Senator Legarda confirmed that in 1998, she also applied for the domain name lorenlegarda.com only to find out that there was already a Loren Legarda website.

Senator Angara admitted that it did not occur to him that someone can appropriate another person’s name. He believed that it happened to Senators Sotto and Legarda because both of them are popular, making it worthwhile to appropriate their names.

To the observation of Senator Sotto that it could happen to a trademark. Senator Angara stated that it would constitute an infringement and promised that the Committee would look into the matter.

Senator Legarda recalled that in 2007, she met with Mr. Chua of the CICT who told her that there was no law covering such a situation. She suggested that perhaps this was the best time to include cybersquatting in the measure. She stated that like Senator Sotto, she was asked to pay millions of pesos for the use of the domain name by an individual based in California and another one based in Singapore.

Senator Angara assured the Body that before the bill is passed, he would look into it and make a recommendation. Senator Sotto said that he owned the domain name but had to pay for it.

Relative to the right to privacy. Senator Sotto noted that there is a thin line between interception, as defined in the bill, and wiretapping. Senator Angara clarified that “interception” refers to illegal access, while wiretapping falls under Section 9. He recalled the recent incident in England when a whistleblower revealed that the leading tabloid, The News of the World, was hacking into computers to access e-mails and voice conversations of certain celebrities and the controversy prompted the owners to close it.

On the concern that the bill would somehow downgrade the right to privacy of a person, Senator Angara stated that with the onset of the internet, people have surrendered much of their privacy anyway. He took note of an article which stated that Steve Jobs, through his creativity, almost single-handedly opened up the privacy of every person through the IPhone and IPad. He surmised that it is a reality nowadays that people’s private lives are being laid bare, sometimes unintentionally. He clarified that precisely, the bill intends to draw the line because crossing it would be a criminal liability.

Senator Sotto asked if special courts would be needed to try cybercrimes since the RTCs might not be equipped to handle them. Senator Angara explained that since these cases arc highly technical, law enforcers must be especially trained on information technology and the internet. He added that the judges should also be equally trained but if establishing a separate court is not feasible, at the very least, there ought to be a group of technically trained judges to hear such cases.

On the sufficiency of the P10 million appropriation for the implementation of the Act, Senator Angara stated that the amount was set four years ago so that he was very much open to increasing the same.

He stated that, presently, cybercrime is costing the country billions of pesos as he recalled that the “I Love You” virus released by Mr. de Guzman ten years ago costs US$5 million worth of damages in the Philippines alone. He added that the frequency of cybercrimes is rising rapidly and that an international protocol on cooperation against cybercrime is needed because the economic damage is already worth billions.

Senator Angara informed the Body that the IT-BPO sector is the fastest growing sector in the economy, now a USS8-9 billion industry, which employs more than half a million people, with a starting salary of P24,000-P26,000 a month. At this rate, he said that by 2016, the sector is expected to employ 1.3 million people and be a US$25 billion-industry, which would probably exceed the remittances of the OFWs. However, he cautioned that the main concern is the potential of the country to be a cybercrime center as he disclosed that according to Semantic – a company monitoring cybercrimes throughout the world – the Philippines is fourth in Asia as among the most vulnerable to such crimes. As such, he stated that it is essential to pass the bill to prevent this concern from becoming a reality.

SUSPENSION OF CONSIDERATION OF SENATE BILL NO. 2796

Upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body suspended consideration of the bill.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

Upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Senate President Pro Tempore declared the session adjourned until three o’clock in the afternoon of the following day.

From the Senate Journal, December 12, 2011

COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 30 ON SENATE BILL NO. 2796
(Continuation)

Upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body resumed consideration, on Second

Reading, of Senate Bill No. 2796 (Committee Report No. 30), entitled

AN ACT DEFINING CYBERCRIME, PROVIDING FOR PREVENTION INVESTIGATION AND IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Senator Sotto stated that the parliamentary status was still the period of interpellations.

Thereupon, the Chair recognized Senator Angara, Sponsor of the measure, and Senator Sotto for his interpellation.

INTERPELLATION OF SENATOR SOTTO

Asked by Senator Sotto to elaborate the more important provisions of Senate Bill No. 2796, Senator Angara stated that the incidence of cybercrime has exponentially increased compared to the time when the bill was filed, and that major computer systems including those of the Pentagon and MI6 of the United Kingdom had been penetrated and hacked by cyber criminals. He disclosed that the Philippines has become one of the favorite spots of cyber criminals and without realizing it, every Filipino has become the object or victim of cybercrimes, including pornography, one way or another. This situation, he asserted, emphasizes the imperative of having a legal framework that would define what constitutes as a cybercrime, a unique and borderless act that can come from any part of the world, and the method of prosecuting its perpetrator who cannot even be detected. Right now, he said, cybercrime is not subject to criminal jurisdiction in the Philippines, thus, the need to pass the bill as speedily as possible.

Senator Sotto expressed his support for the measure, but he asked if it considered and included all possible cybercrimes. In reply, Senator Angara stated that the Committee has included and attempted to define in the bill as many crimes presently recognized by experts and academics as criminal acts and while he was uncertain that all conceivable cybercrimes had been embraced therein, the Committee had attempted nonetheless to be as comprehensive as possible to avoid exceptions or loopholes.

Asked if the bill addresses internet terrorism, for instance, the ILOVEYOU virus launched by Onel De Guzman that wreaked US$5 billion worth of damage five years ago, Senator Angara replied in the affirmative.

As regards the cyber attack on Sony Corporation, Senator Angara said that the damages were even more extensive because all the financial records and accounts stored in Sony’s playlist were hacked. He revealed that the extent of actual financial loss has not yet been determined and Sony claimed the damage is beyond monetary estimate.

Considering that the world is currently built around wireless networks and communications, Senator Sotto asked if the bill could protect the Philippines from a similar cyber attack. Senator Angara asserted that not even the most technologically advanced countries can guarantee their systems against cyber attacks as he pointed out that hackers were able to break into the computer systems of the Pentagon, Russia and MI6 of the UK. He said that while there is no assurance that the passage of Senate Bill No. 2796 into law would protect the Philippines against cybercrimes, for the first time there would be a framework defining such crimes which the police authorities and enforcers can employ to pursue the culprits.

To the observation that the country would not survive a cyber attack without a cybercrime law, Senator Angara added that right now, the country’s financial system is highly vulnerable to cyber attacks such as credit card theft, identify theft, et cetera, more so without a legal framework on cybercrime.

On whether there is anything in the bill which would help the PNP or NBI to be competent and equipped to fight cybercrimes. Senator Angara averred that the PNP and NBI would welcome the passage of the bill into law because (1) it would encourage coordination among law enforcement agencies, internal coordination and cooperation with other jurisdictions being one of the most important elements in cybercrime prevention; and (2) there would be additional funding for training of law enforcement officials. Further, he pointed out that the two leading law enforcement agencies in the country can look forward to more training funds, more equipment and more coordination which would improve their situation.

Senator Sotto recalled that while browsing over the statistics from NBI and the international community, he became more convinced of the need to pass the measure into law at the soonest possible time because there were really no appropriate mechanisms to detect, monitor and prosecute cybercrimes notwithstanding the E-commerce law and other laws. As regards the E-commerce law, Senator Angara clarified that it is only limited to hacking and tracking a very limited crime and in the span of 10 years of its existence, there has been only one conviction.

Senator Sotto mentioned that the NBI report in the National Cyber Crime Defense Capability Conference held last March 2011 only recorded 30 cybercrimes in the Philippines and there were no new updates.

Upon further query, Senator Angara confirmed that the Department of Justice is the implementing arm of the cybercrime measure, adding that a coordinating office would be created thereunder.

Asked if the bill would also allow the hiring of skilled prosecutors to handle cybercrimes, Senator Angara replied in the affirmative. He stressed that the bill provides capability skills not only to law enforcers but also to judges. He said that one of the advantages in enacting the bill into law is that training would be provided to law enforcers, prosecutors and judges handling cybercrimes. He added that there is also a provision in the bill that evidence gathered through digital and other means will be admissible.

Asked by Senator Sotto if the bill also addresses internet libel or internet defamation, Senator Angara stated that the bill includes it as a crime, an actionable offense, because one can be defamed through Twitter or social media.

Referring to the case of actress Rhian Ramos, who claimed that someone maliciously distributed information about her through the You Tube, Senator Angara believed that it is an actionable offense under the bill and the PNP and NBI would monitor and investigate it.

Asked if the bill also covers acts such as sending coarse and offensive comments against someone via Twitter and Facebook, Senator Angara said that with proper authorization, the NBI and PNP forensic experts can trace the source even if anonymous names were used.

To the comment that one’s reputation can easily be ruined and damaged by posts and comments in social network sites, Senator Angara stated that under the proposed law, the offended party can sue the person responsible for posting such comments.

At this juncture, Senate President Pro Tempore Ejercito Estrada relinquished the Chair to Senator Legarda.

INTERPELLATION OF SENATOR GUINGONA

At the outset, Senator Guingona quoted Section 4 subsection A.5. – Misuse of Devices, to wit:

  1. The use, production, sale, procurement, importation, distribution, or otherwise making available, without right, of:
    1. a device, including a computer program, designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this Act.”

To Senator Guingona’s concern that the provision gives unbridled discretion to law enforcers in determining primary and incidental use of cyber materials. Senator Angara surmised that those concerns would be determined through the implementing rules and regulations. He believed that the PNP has developed the forensic skills to distinguish between primary use and incidental use.

Senator Guingona gave the example of a person who uploaded a picture of his girlfriend clad in a bikini in the internet for the purpose of impressing his friends but which the authorities might think violates the cybersex provision. He expressed concern that law enforcers are being given the authority to determine a violation.

Senator Angara opined that uploading the picture is not a cybercrime since the intention was not for any consideration or favor. He added that it would have been different if the person did not ask his girlfriend to wear anything at all.

Senator Guingona stated as a civil libertarian, he fears that Section 4. A. 5. a-i is an intrusion of the State into the person’s primary or incidental intention. Senator Angara stated that at the proper time, he would welcome any amendments to the provision

Senator Guingona noted that under the bill, cybersex as a computer-related offense is defined as “any person who establishes, maintains or controls, directly or indirectly any operation for sexual activity or arousal with the aid of or through the use of a computer system, for favor or consideration.”

Senator Guingona informed the Body that Playboy magazine has adopted a digital version in the internet but anyone who wants to see its full version has to pay. He cautioned that the provision could run counter to the Constitution.

Asked if a person who pays to see the full version of Playboy would be punished under the measure, Senator Angara replied that the digital magazine is a publication protected under the law.

On the issue of pornography, Senator Angara stated that Congress has to apply the standards for judging whether a particular material is pornographic or not. He stated that under Philippine law, the test would be the prurient interest of the viewer in the material, and since it is without any redeeming social value, it is pornographic.

Senator Guingona pointed out that pornography is a never ending debate. He believed that Congress cannot legislate morality in the same way that it cannot impose religion on another person.

Agreeing with Senator Guingona, Senator Angara stated that cybersex, pornography, et cetera are already established in Philippine jurisprudence. He said that Congress cannot just brand a picture or publication pornographic without following the wordings of the law. In the realm of morality and something technically new, he noted, controversies will always be present. However, he stated that there are standards for judging whether something is harmful or unacceptable to the community because it violates the sense of right and wrong. He underscored that these standards already exist, that is why law enforcers cannot just invade a person’s privacy and get away with it. He said that there are also legal constraints that prevent a law enforcer from making a wrongful arrest. He stressed that the bill has parameters for judging whether a particular material in the internet partakes of a cybercrime. He believed that without a law, the internet would be a wild-wild west as it is right now.

As regards Section 3(g), Senator Guingona cited the example of an employee who has 100 file folders in an office computer; 99 folders containing office-related matters and one containing personal materials. He then asked if the employer is allowed to access the employee’s personal folder without his/her permission. Senator Angara replied that the employer has no right to access the personal folder of its employee and the bill, in fact, does not only include the computer but also each and every folder or file. He averred that in criminal law, any doubt should be interpreted in favor of the accused; it cannot be liberally interpreted to be in favor of conviction for commission of an offense.

Senator Guingona observed that the debates on the E-commerce act revealed that search warrants for computer systems might become broader in view of physical spaces. He stated that there is fear that going through the whole computer with so many files might result in indiscriminate fishing expedition.

Senator Angara recalled that the matter was raised earlier by another senator. He agreed that the Committee would use the formula for authorizing search under the E-commerce law. He stated that at the proper time, the provision would be amended to include strict measures for searching.

On Section 11. Disclosure of Computer Data, Senator Guingona noted that the first sentence seemed to send the message that the order would come from the law enforcement agency and not from the court. Senator Angara corrected that it is a judicial warrant as he assured that the provision would be amended at the proper time.

Referring to Section 10, Senator Guingona expressed concern on the capability of service providers to preserve traffic data and subscriber information for a given period of time. He stated that the provision would be useless if service providers are physically incapable of complying with the requirements of the law.

Senator Angara stated that with today’s technology, the storage is almost infinite in light of cloud computing, which is very cheap by the way.

Senator Guingona stated that at the proper time, he would propose amendments to the bill.

INTERPELLATION OF SENATOR PIMENTEL

At the outset, Senator Pimentel stated that he finds the bill’s definition of “child” in Section 4(c) vague as he cautioned that under the void-for-vagueness doctrine in the U.S. Constitution, a vague provision of the law, especially a criminal one, would be void. He observed that while Section 4(c) defines “child” as also referring to a person regardless of age who is presented, depicted or portrayed as a child as defined herein,” in law, a “child” is defined as “someone below 18 or over 18 but who is unable to fully take care of himself or herself from abuse and exploitation because of physical or mental ability.”

Asked what the concept of “child” is under the bill, Senator Angara replied that the term is for purposes of defining child pornography. He admitted, however, that the provision is one of the items that need to be amended at the proper time. He noted that as it is, the definition of “child” in the law as someone under 18 or may be over 18 if he is mentally incapacitated is a little broad and unclear. He gave assurance, however, that the Committee would remove all the vagueness in the bill.

Senator Pimentel observed that Section 4(c)(b) is also vulnerable to constitutional challenge because a computer can generate the image of a person above 18 and make him appear younger, although there was no real person involved.

MANIFESTATION OF SENATOR SOTTO

Senator Sotto manifested that he was submitting to the Committee his proposal on preserving the domain name for inclusion in the committee amendments. Senator Angara stated that the Committee had already done so.

Senator Sotto also gave notice that Senate President Enrile wishes to interpellate on the measure.

SUSPENSION OF CONSIDERATION OF SENATE BILL NO. 2796

Upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body suspended consideration of the bill.

From the Senate Journal, December 13, 2011

COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 30 ON SENATE BILL NO. 2796
(Continuation)

Upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body resumed consideration, on Second Reading, of Senate Bill No. 2796 (Committee Report No. 30), entitled

AN ACT DEFINING CYBERCRIME, PROVIDING FOR PREVENTION, INVESTIGATION AND IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Senator Sotto stated that the parliamentary status was still the period of interpellations.

Thereupon, the Chair recognized Senator Angara, Sponsor of the measure, and Senate President Enrile for his interpellation.

INTERPELLATION OF SENATE PRESIDENT ENRILE

At the outset, Senate President Enrile stated that he was supportive of the measure but that he was concerned over how the various crimes were defined in the bill.

Adverting to Section 4(1) (Illegal Access), he stated that it would be very difficult to prove an intentional access to computer data since every access is assumed to have been made deliberately. To prevent the difficulty of establishing malicious intent, he suggested that at the proper time, the word “intentional” be deleted so that the phrase would simply read “access without justifiable reason to the whole or any part of a computer system without right.” As reworded, he said that would be easier for the prosecutors to file a case against violators.

At this juncture, Senate President Pro Tempore Ejercito Estrada relinquished the Chair to Senator Legarda.

As regards Section 4(2) (Illegal Interception), Senate President Enrile asked how one could prove the intentional or non-intentional interception of transmission of computer data considering that the very act of interception has a presumption of intent. He believed that the phrase “interception without justifiable reason” would be a better definition of the crime.

Senate President Enrile also noted that the “intentional or reckless alteration of computer data” contained in Section 4(3) (Data interference) would be a very difficult definition of the crime because the intent for doing so would need to be proved particularly since the offender could give the excuse that the alternation was made accidentally. Moreover, he pointed out that the degree of recklessness should also be qualified. For this purpose, he suggested that the crime be defined as “alteration without justifiable reason of computer data” in case the culprit was unable to explain why he altered the data.

Moreover, he pointed out the phrase “intentional or reckless hindering” used in Section 4(4) (System Interference) and he believed that the definitions are very abstract that it would be difficult to prove them, which is vital in the prosecution of a case. He said that proving intent is one of the most difficult thing that a prosecutor can do based on his experience in criminal law.

Senator Angara explained that the Committee copied the terms from the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. However, he acknowledged that it would have been better if such provisions were adopted to suit the Philippine legal system.

Asked whether the enforcement of the provisions in the Budapest convention had been successful, Senator Angara replied that he was not aware how things had turned out.

On the definition of “computer-related offenses,” Senate President Enrile pointed out that the use of the word “intentional” as a modifier in crime is very difficult to prove in court, the reason many offenders get away with it because the prosecutors have difficulty proving the element of intent. He suggested that said crimes be made mala prohibita rather than mala in se in order to make the mere act a punishable crime by itself.

Senator Angara accepted the suggestion, acknowledging that intent is one of the hardest things to prove in a criminal case.

TERMINATION OF THE PERIOD OF INTERPELLATIONS

There being no other interpellation, upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body closed the period of interpellations.

SUSPENSION OF CONSIDERATION OF SENATE BILL NO. 2796

Upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body suspended consideration of the bill.

From the Senate Journal, January 24, 2012

COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 30 ON SENATE BILL NO. 2796]
(Continuation)

Upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body resumed consideration, on Second Reading, of Senate Bill No. 2796 (Committee Report No. 30), entitled

AN ACT DEFINING CYBERCRIME, PROVIDING FOR PREVENTION, INVESTIGATION AND IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Senator Sotto stated that the Body has already closed the period of interpellations and being a substitute bill, there will be no committee amendments. He said that the parliamentary status was the period of individual amendments.

Thereupon, the Chair recognized Senator Angara, Sponsor of the measure.

REQUEST OF SENATOR ANGARA

Senator Angara requested that he be given enough time as he was awaiting the Secretariat’s submission of the amended committee report incorporating all the individual amendments which were introduced in the course of the debate and interpellations on the bill. He said that the Secretariat shall likewise submit the copies of the proposed amendments introduced individually by the senators and the corresponding explanation behind each amendment for purposes of convenience. He stated that these documents will soon be distributed to the Members.

REQUEST OF THE CHAIR

At this point, Senate President Pro Tempore Ejercito Estrada requested Senate President Enrile to preside over the rostrum and hand over the resolution commending Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

With the permission of the Body, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 9:48 am.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 10:04 a.m., the session was resumed.

INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS

As proposed by Senator Angara, there being no objection, the following amendments to Senate Bill No. 2796 were approved by the Body, one after the other:

Page 2

1. On line 15, insert a new paragraph to read:

D) COMPUTER – AN ELECTRONIC, MAGNETIC, OPTICAL, ELECTROCHEMICAL OR OTHER DATA PROCESSING OR COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE, OR GROUPING OF SUCH DEVICES, CAPABLE OF PERFORMING LOGICAL, ARITHMETIC, ROUTING, OR STORAGE FUNCTIONS AND WHICH INCLUDES ANY STORAGE FACILITY OR EQUIPMENT OR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY OR EQUIPMENT DIRECTLY RELATED TO OR OPERATING IN CONJUCTION WITH SUCH DEVICE. IT COVERS ANY TYPE OF COMPUTER DEVICE INCLUDING DEVICES WITH DATA PROCESSING CAPABILITIES LIKE MOBILE PHONES AND ALSO COMPUTER NETWORKS;

2. Renumber the succeeding terms accordingly;

3. On line 31, insert the following subparagraphs to read:

H) CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE – REFERS TO THE COMPUTER SYSTEMS, AND/OR NETWORKS, WHETHER PHYSICAL OR VIRTUAL, AND/OR THE COMPUTER PROGRAMS, COMPUTER DATA AND/OR TRAFFIC DATA SO VITAL TO THIS COUNTRY THAT THE INCAPACITY OR DESTRUCTION OF OR INTERFERENCE WITH SUCH SYSTEMS AND ASSETS WOULD HAVE A DEBILITATING IMPACT ON SECURITY, NATIONAL OR ECONOMIC SECURITY, NATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, OR ANY COMBINATION OF THOSE MATTERS;

1) CYBERSECURITY – REFERS TO THE COLLECTION OF TOOLS, POLICIES, RISK MANAGEMENT APPROACHES, ACTIONS, TRAINING, BEST PRACTICES, ASSURANCE AND TECHNOLOGIES THAT CAN BE USED TO PROTECT THE CYBER ENVIRONMENT AND ORGANIZATION AND USER’S ASSETS;

4. Renumber the succeeding terms accordingly;

Page 3

5. On line 20, between the words “which” and “can”, insert the word IDENTITY;

Page 4

6. On lines 14 to 17, delete the word “intentional” as found in the definitions of “Illegal Access” and “Illegal Interception”;

7. On line 29, delete the phrase “intentional or reckless” and in lieu thereof, add the words, DELETION, DETERIORATION in the definition of “Data Interference”;

8. On line 32, delete the phrase “intentional or reckless” from the definition of “System Interference”;

9. On line 36, insert a new subparagraph to read:

5. CYBERSQUATTING – 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 DOMAIN IS:

  1. SIMILAR, IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO AN EXISTING TRADEMARK REGISTERED WITH THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT AGENCY AT THE TIME OF THE DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION;
  2. IDENTICAL OR IN ANY WAY SIMILAR WITH THE NAME OF A PERSON OTHER THAN THE REGISTRANT, IN CASE OF A PERSONAL NAME; AND
  3. ACQUIRED WITHOUT RIGHT OR WITH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INTERESTS IN IT.

Page 5

10. On line 23, delete the word “intentional”;

11. On line 31, delete the phrase “intentional and”;

12. On line 33, after the word “thereby,” insert a period (.) and delete the rest of the paragraph;

Page 6

13. Delete lines 3 to 5 and insert the new definition as follows:

  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.

REMARKS OF SENATOR GUINGONA

At this juncture, Senator Guingona expressed concern that the definition of cybersex smacked of prior restraint and he feared that this would violate the Constitution.

Senator Angara stated that the Committee did not intend to impose any prior restraint. He appealed to the Body to first hear the individual amendments and after which, the Committee could go back to Senator Guingona’s query.

14. Delete lines 7 to 19;

15. On line 21, between the word “law” and period (.), insert a comma (,) and the phrase ESPECIALLY AS COMMITTED THROUGH A COMPUTER SYSTEM;

REMARKS OF SENATOR CAYETANO (P)

Senator Cayetano (P) requested that she be given time to make sure that the bill’s definition of child pronography is aligned with that of RA 9775.

Senator Angara explained that the particular provision was amended upon the request of Senator Cayetano (P) so that there will be no conflict with the definition of child pornography on the bill and that of RA 9775.

Page 7

16. After line 22, insert the following paragraph:

ANY PERSON FOUND GUILTY OF THE PUNISHABLE ACT UNDER SECTION 4A.5 SHALL BE PUNISHED WITH IMPRISONMENT OF PRISION MAYOR OR A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PHP500,000.00) OR BOTH.

17. Before line 23, insert the following paragraph:

IF PUNISHABLE ACTS IN SECTION 4A ARE COMMITTED AGAINST CRITICAL INFRASTUCTURE, THE PENALTY OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL OR A FINE OF AT LEAST FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PHP500,000.00) UP TO MAXIMUM AMOUNT COMMENSURATE TO THE DAMAGE INCURRED OR BOTH.

Page 8

18. On line 9, after the word “within” and the comma (,), delete the word “in”;

19. Delete lines 28 to 33 and in lieu thereof, insert the following paragraphs:

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 TRANSMITTED BY 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 IDENTITIES.

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 ABOVE-STATED INFORMATION.

Page 9

20. On line 1, between the words “the” and “of,” replace the word “data” with “DATE”;

21. On line 25, after the word “ACT,” delete the phrase “content of communications, procure the content of data either directly, through access and use of computer system, or indirectly, through the use of electronic eavesdropping or tapping devices, in real time or at the same time that the communication is occurring;”

22. On line 33, between the words “conduct” and “examination,” insert the phrase FORENSIC ANALYSIS OR;

Page 10

23. After line 9, insert a new section to read as follows:

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 COMPUTER DATA.;

24. Renumber the following sections accordingly;

25. On line 35, insert a new paragraph to read as follows:

THERE SHALL BE DESIGNATED SPECIAL CYBERCRIME COURTS MANNED BY SPECIALLY TRAINED JUDGES TO HANDLE CYBERCRIME CASES.

Page 11

26. Delete lines 10 to 13;

27. On line 18, reword Section 18 (“Department of Justice”) as follows:

SEC. 18. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE — THERE IS HEREBY CREATED AN OFFICE OF CYBERCRIME WITHIN THE DOJ DESIGNATED AS THE CENTRAL AUTHORITY IN ALL MATTERS RELATED TO INTERNATIONAL MUTUAL ASSISTANCE AND EXTRADITION.

28. On line 27, reword Section 19 (“Commission on Information and Communication Technology”) as follows:

SEC. 19. DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY – INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY OFFICE THERE IS HEREBY CREATED A NATIONAL CYBERSECURITY CENTER (NSCS) WITHIN THE DOST-ICTO DESIGNATED TO FORMULATE AND IMPLEMENT A NATIONAL CYBERSECURITY POLICY, AND EXTEND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF REAL-TIME COMMISSION OF CYBERCRIME OFFENSES THROUGH A COMPUTER EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM (CERT).

Page 12

29. On lines 1 and 2, delete the chapter title “CYBERCRIME INVESTIGATION AND COORDINATING CENTER” and replace it with NATIONAL CYBERSECURITY COUNCIL;

30. On line 4, replace the words “Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center” with NATIONAL CYBERSECURITY COUNCIL;

31. On line 6, delete the words “Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center, herein referred to as CICC” and in lieu thereof, insert the phrase NATIONAL CYBER­SECURITY COUNCIL, HEREIN REFERRED TO AS NCCC” to read as follows:

32. On line 10, reword lines 10 to 14 as follows:

SEC. 21. COMPOSITION. — THE NCCC SHALL BE HEADED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE DOST-ICTO AS CHAIRMAN; WITH THE DIRECTOR OF THE NBI; CHIEF OF THE PNP; HEAD OF THE DOJ OFFICE OF THE CYBERCRIME, AS MEMBERS; AND REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND ACADEME.

33. On line 16, change the acronym “CICC” to NCCC;

34. On line 19, change the acronym “CICC” to NCCC;

35. On lines 21 and 22, delete the phrase “to prevent and suppress cybercrime activities” and in lieu thereof, insert the phrase RELATED TO CYBERSECURITY;

36. Delete lines 25 to 27;

37. On lines 29 and 30, change the words “cybercrime prevention” to CYBERSECURITY;

38. On line 34, replace the acronym “CICC” with NCCC;

39. On line 35, between the words “duties” and “necessary,” insert the word AS and delete the phrase “for the implementation of this Act”;

Page 13

40. On line 4, replace the word “ten” with FIFTY;

41. On line 5, replace the figure “10,000,000.000″ with “50,000,000.00″;

42. On line 8, delete the words “Commission on Information and Communication Technology” and in lieu thereof, insert the words DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM THE EFFECTIVITY OF THIS ACT.

43. On line 10, replace the word “Office” with CENTER;

44. On line 17, after the figure “33,” insert a hyphen (-) and letter “A.”

REMARKS OF SENATOR ANGARA

As regards the definition of “cybersex,” Senator Angara said that the new definition was precisely in response to the reservation of Senators Guingona and Defensor Santiago over the word “arousal” which they asserted is a very subjective term. However, he explained that the phrase “favor or consideration” was retained because this is the crux of the cybercrime — that the act was done for money, consideration or favor. He asked why the definition would suggest or imply prior restraint.

In answer, Senator Guingona argued that the definition leaves to the judge the discretion to interpret, for example, lascivious exhibition that can be very broad. He admitted that he was very uncomfortable with the definition because it is akin to legislating morality. He suggested that the whole section be deleted.

Senator Angara disagreed that it was tantamount to legislating morality as he pointed out that deleting the definition would imply that the Body is not in agreement that cybersex, probably one of the rampant crimes committed against children, is indeed a crime.

To the observation of Senator Guingona that it runs against the Constitution, Senator Angara stated that while he respects Senator Guingona’s libertarian inclinations, the definition ought to be kept, otherwise, children using computers or internet kiosks will be exposed to a large field of unregulated and non-criminalized activities.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

Upon motion of Senator Guingona, the session was suspended.

It was 10:30 am.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 10:32 a.m., the session was resumed.

DEFENSOR SANTIAGO AMENDMENTS

As proposed by Senator Defensor Santiago, and accepted by the Sponsor, there being no objection, the Body approved the following amendments, one after the other:

  1. On page 2, line 27, after the word “messages” and the semicolon (;), insert the words WHETHER STORED IN A LOCAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS OR ONLINE.

Senator Defensor Santiago explained that while Sections 4(A) and (B) of the Act define offenses against confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems and computer-related offenses, said offenses apply to computer data and computer system. It is clear, she noted, that owners of computer systems or data are protected from hacking or interference as criminalized in said subsections but the same should also apply to online programs, emails and social networks.

  1. On page 5, line 33, delete the phrase “with the intent of procuring economic benefit for oneself or for another person or for the perpetuation of a fraudulent or dishonest activity” and in lieu thereof, insert the phrase WITH FRAUDULENT INTENT.

Senator Defensor Santiago explained that damage and fraudulent intent should be sufficient whether or not there is an economic benefit. It is possible, she said, that the intention of the computer-related fraud is not for economic gain but to destroy. She further noted that “perpetuation of a fraudulent activity” connotes a series of actions, therefore, it should be sufficient that the perpetrator in one act shows fraudulent intent.

  1. On page 8, after line 33, insert a new paragraph, to read as follows:

THE COURT WARRANT REQUIRED UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL ONLY BE ISSUED OR GRANTED UPON WRITTEN APPLICATION AND THE EXAMINATION UNDER OATH OR AFFIRMATION OF THE APPLICANT AND THE WITNESSES HE MAY PRODUCE AND THE SHOWING: (1) THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT ANY OF THE CRIMES ENUMERATED HEREIN-ABOVE HAS BEEN COMMITTED OR IS BEING COMMITTED OR IS ABOUT TO BE COMMITTED; (2) THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT EVIDENCE OBTAINED IS ESSENTIAL TO THE CONVICTION OF ANY PERSON FOR, OR TO THE SOLUTION OF, OR TO THE PREVENTION OF, ANY SUCH CRIMES; AND (3) THAT THERE ARE NO OTHER MEANS READILY AVAILABLE FOR OBTAINING SUCH EVIDENCE.

Senator Defensor Santiago observed that Section 9 lacks the parameters to ensure that the authority granted therein will not be abused by law enforcement authorities. She cited a provision in Section 3 of RA 4200, otherwise known as the “Anti-Wire Tapping Law,” which may serve as guide in setting the parameters: “Provided, That such written order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce and a showing: (1) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated hereinabove has been committed or is being committed or is about to be committed: xxx (3) that there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence.”

Senator Angara stated that the amendment further strengthens the restraint to be exercised by law enforcers before they search any of the computer data.

INQUIRY OF SENATOR LACSON

Asked by Senator Lacson whether the definition of “cybersex” which refers to “any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity with the aid of a computer system for favor or consideration,” covers phone sex, Senator Angara expressed apprehension that doing so might be outside what is permissible.

Senator Sotto added that it is very difficult nowadays to classify the telephone as part of the computer system.

SOTTO AMENDMENT

Preliminarily, Senator Sotto stated that there are numerous abuses in technology, particularly the video and photo uploading and unnecessary write-ups and comments in social networking systems. He read the definition of libel in Mendez vs. Court of Appeals (GR No. 124491, June 1, 1999), to wit:

… a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to discredit or cause the dishonor or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. Thus, the elements of libel are: (a) imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another; (b) publication of the imputation; (c) identity of the person defamed; and, (d) existence of malice.

Senator Sotto further cited the ruling in Lacsa vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (161 SCRA 427) which states that:

Words calculated to induce suspicion are sometimes more effective to destroy reputation than false charges directly made. Ironical and metaphorical language is a favored vehicle for slander. A charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to induce the hearers to suppose and understand that the person or persons against whom they were uttered were guilty of certain offenses, or are sufficient to impeach their honesty, virtue, or reputation, or to hold the person or persons up to public ridicule.

Further, Senator Sotto observed that the publication requirement in the crime of libel can be achieved by the mere fact that it is seen in cyber-space and this can further promote the habit of “think before you click.” It is clear, he noted, that cybercrimes are not covered under Article 355 of Revised Penal Code.

On page 6, line 37, as proposed by Senator Sotto and accepted by the Sponsor, there being no objection, the Body approved the insertion of a new paragraph, to wit:

  1. LIBEL – THE UNLAWFUL OR PROHIBITED ACTS OF LIBEL AS DEFINED IN ARTICLE 355 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE COMMITTED THROUGH A COMPUTER SYSTEM OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR MEANS WHICH MAY BE DEVISED IN THE FUTURE.

Senator Angara pointed out that cyberspace is just a new avenue for publicizing or communicating a libellous statement which is subject to prosecution and punishment as defined by the Revised Penal Code.

TERMINATION OF THE PERIOD OF INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS

There being no other individual amendment, upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body closed the period of individual amendments.

APPROVAL OF SENATE BILL NO. 2796 ON SECOND READING

Submitted to a vote, there being no objection, Senate Bill No. 2796 was approved on Second Reading.

SUSPENSION OF CONSIDERATION OF SENATE BILL NO. 2796

Upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body suspended consideration of the bill.

From the Senate Journal, January 30, 2012

APPROVAL OF SENATE BILL NO. 2796

ON THIRD READING

Upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body considered, on Third Reading, Senate Bill No, 2796, printed copies of which were distributed to the senators on January 26, 2012, Pursuant to Section 67, Rule XXIll of the Rules of the Senate, upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, Secretary Reyes read only the title of the bill, to wit:

AN ACT DEFINING CYBERCRIME, PROVIDING FOR PREVENTION, INVESTIGATION AND IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Secretary Reyes called the roll for nominal voting.

RESULT OF THE VOTING

The result of the voting was as follows:

In favor

Cayetano (P)
Ejercito Estrada
Escudero
Honasan
Lacson
Lapid
Legarda
Marcos
Pimentel
Recto
Revilla
Sotto
Villar

Against

Guingona

Abstention

None

With 13 senators voting in favor, one against, and no abstention, the Chair declared Senate Bill No. 2796 approved on Third Reading.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE BY SENATOR GUINGONA

Senator Guingona stated that he voted against the bill mainly because its definition of “cybersex” runs directly in contravention of the constitutional principles of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. He said that the bill not only constitutes a prior restraint on said freedoms but also legislates morality which, he felt as a libertarian, is not within the realm of the legislature. He stressed that no one has the right to say what is moral and immoral, impose it on others, and make it a crime. He added that the bill sets the country back because in this 21st century, instead of moving forward, morality is being legislated. It should not be allowed and it is unconstitutional, he said.

From the Senate Journal, June 5, 2012

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT ON SENATE BILL NO. 2796 AND HOUSE BILL NO. 5808

Upon motion of Senator Sotto, there being no objection, the Body considered tlle Conference Committee Report on the disagreeing provisions of Senate Bill No. 2796, entitled

AN ACT DEFINING CYBERCRIME, PROVIDING FOR PREVENTION, INVESTIGATION AND IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,

and House Bill No. 5808, entitled

AN ACT DEFINING CYBERCRIME, PROVIDING FOR THE PREVENTION,  INVESTIGATION, SUPPRESSION AND THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

The Chair recognized Senator Angara to sponsor the report.

JOINT EXPLANATION OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE

At the instance of Senator Angara, there being no objection, the Body approved the insertion of the Joint Explanation of the Conference Committee on the disagreeing provisions of Senate Bill No. 2708 and House Bill No. 5808 into the Journal and Record of the Senate.

Following is the full text of the Joint Explanation:

JOINT EXPLANATION OFTHE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON THE DISAGREEING PROVISIONS OF SENATE BILL NO. 2796 AND HOUSE BILL NO. 5808

The Conference Committee of the Senate and House of Representatives on the disagreeing provisions of Senate Bill No. 2796 and House Bill No. 5808 submits the following joint statement to both Houses in explanation of the amendments agreed upon by the conferees and recommended in the accompanying Conference Committee Report:

1. The bicameral conference committee agreed to use the Senate version as the working draft of the conferees.

2. Section 2 of the Senate version on the Declaration of Policy was adopted.

3. Section 3, Definition of Terms, of the Senate version was adopted with the following amendments:

a) Subparagraph (c), Communication, was amended by inserting the phrase “information through ICT medium, including voice, video and other forms of data” as stated in the House version and shall now read as follows:

“(c) Communication refers to the transmission of information through ICT media, including voice, video and other forms of data.”

b) Subparagraph (d), Computer, the last phrase has been reworded to read as follows:

“It covers any type of computer device including devices with data processing capabilities like mobile phones, smart phones, computer networks, and other devices connected to the internet.”

4. Subparagraph (f), Computer Data, of the Senate version was adopted as subparagraph (e) of the reconciled version;

5. Subparagraphs (e), Computer Program, and (t) Computer System, of the House version were adopted as subparagraphs (t) and (g) of the reconciled version;

6. Subparagraph (j), Without Right, of the Senate version was adopted as subparagraph (h) of the reconciled version;

7. Subparagraph (h), Cyber, of the House version was adopted as subparagraph (i) of the reconciled version;

8. Subparagraphs (h), Critical Infrastructure; (i), Cyber security; (k), Database; (I), Interception; (m), Service Provider; (n) Subscriber’s information; and (o), Traffic Data or Non-Content Data of the Senate version were adopted and renumbered as subparagraphs (j), (k), (I), (m), (n), (0), and (p) of the reconciled version;

9. Section 4 of the Senate version was adopted with the following amendments:

a) On subparagraph (2) of Section 4, Illegal Interception, the following proviso was deleted:

Provided, however, That it shall not be unlawful for an officer, employee, or agent of a service provider, whose facilities are used in the transmission of communications, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity that is necessary to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the service provider, except that the latter shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service control quality checks.”

b) Subparagraphs (3), Data Interference and (4) System Interference, of the House version were adopted as subparagraphs (3) and (4) of the reconciled version.

c) Subparagraph (6), Misuse of Devices, of the Senate version was adopted and renumbered as subparagraph (5) of the reconciled version, but with the deletion of the following proviso:

Provided, That no criminal liability shall attach when the use, production, sale, procurement, importation, distribution, or otherwise making available, or possession of computer devices/data referred to is for the authorized testing of a computer system.”

d) Subparagraph (5), Cyber-squatting, of the Senate version was adopted as subparagraph (6) of the reconciled version,

e) Subparagraphs (B1) Computer Related Forgery, and (B2) Computer Related Fraud, of the Senate version were adopted as subparagraphs (8 I) and (B2) as the reconciled version.

f) Subparagraph (b3) Computer Related Identity Theft, of the House version was adopted as subparagraph (B3) of the reconciled version with the deletion of the second paragraph on penalties, to wit:

“Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section4(a) of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of at least Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) up to a maximum amount commensurate to the damage incurred or both.”

g) Subparagraph (C1), Cybersex, of the Senate version was adopted as paragraph (C1) of the reconciled version;

h) Subparagraph (C2), Child Pornography, of the Senate version was adopted with the following amendments:

1) Delete the words “especially as” between the words “2009″ and “committed”; and

2) The following proviso after the word “system” was added:

Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one degree higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775.”

10. Subparagraph (C3), Unsolicited Commercial Communications, of the Senate version was adopted with the following amendments:

1) Inserted a new subparagraph (b) which reads as follows:

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

2) Renumber subparagraph (C3b) of the Senate version as subparagraph (C3c).

11. Section 5, Other Offenses, of the Senate version was adopted as Section 5 of the reconciled version.

12. 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 laws.”

13. Section 6, Liability under Other Laws, of the Senate version was adopted as Section 7 as the reconciled version.

14. Section 7, Penalties, of the Senate version was adopted as Section 8 of the reconciled version, with the following amendments:

a. The following proviso was added after Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009:

Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one degree higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775, if committed through a computer system.”

15. Section 8, Corporate Liability, of the Senate version was adopted as Section 9 of the reconciled version with the following amendments:

a) Insert in the conditions for (a) and (b) with the following:

“a) a power of representation of the juridical person, PROVIDED THE ACT COMMITTED FALLS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SUCH AUTHORITY”;

“b) an authority to take decisions on behalf of the juridical person, PROVIDED THE ACT COMMITTED FALLS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SUCH AUTHORITY, or”;

16. Section 8, Law Enforcement Agencies, of the House version was adopted as Section 10 of the reconciled version, with the title changed to “Law Enforcement Authorities” for consistency.

17. Section 15, Duties of Law Enforcement Authorities, of the Senate version was adopted as Section 11 of the reconciled version.

18. Section 9, Real Time Collection of Traffic Data, of the Senate version was adopted as Section 12 of the reconciled version.

19. Section 10, Preservation of Computer Data, of the Senate version was adopted as Section 13 of the reconciled version.

20. Section 11, Disclosure of Computer Data, of the Senate version was adopted as Section 14 of the reconciled version.

21. Section 12, Search, Seizure, and Examination of Computer Data, of the Senate version was adopted as Section 15 of the reconciled version.

22. Sections 13, Custody of Computer Data, 14, Destruction of Computer Data, and 15, Exclusionary Rule, of the House version were adopted as Sections 16, 17, and 18 of the reconciled version, with an amendment on the Sections referred to on Destruction of Data to reflect the renumbering of the reconciled version: new Sections referred to are now Sections 13 and 15.

23. Section 13, Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer, of the Senate version was adopted as Section 19 of the reconciled version.

24. Section 14, Non-compliance, of the Senate version was adopted as Section 20 of the reconciled version.

25. Section 16, Jurisdiction, of the Senate version was adopted as Section 21 of the reconciled version.

26. Chapter VI on International Cooperation, Section 17 of the Senate version on General Principle Relating to International Cooperation was adopted as Section 22 of the reconciled version.

27. Chapter VII on Competent Authorities, Section 18, Department of Justice, of the Senate version was adopted as Section 23 of the reconciled version.

28. Section 18, Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center, of the House version was adopted as Section 23 of the reconciled version.

29. Section 19, Composition, of the House version was adopted as Section 24 of the reconciled version with the following amendments:

a) Delete the phrase “the Chief of the National Prosecution Service and the Head of the National Computer Center” after the word “PNP” and “as members” and in lieu thereof, insert the following phrase:

“Head of the DOJ Office of the Cybercrime and one (1) representative each from the private sector and academe”

30. Section 20 of the House version was adopted as Section 25 of the reconciled version.

31. The chapter on Final Provisions is adopted as Chapter VIII of the reconciled version.

32. Section 23 of the Senate version was adopted as Section 27 of the reconciled version.

33. Section 27 of the House version was adopted as Section 28 of the reconciled version.

34. Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Senate version were adopted as Sections 29, 30 and 31 of the reconciled version.

The title of the House version was adopted as the title of the reconciled version. It reads:

“AN ACT DEFINING CYBERCRIME, PROVIDING FORTIIE PREVENTION, INVESTIGATION, SUPPRESSION AND THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”

In case of a conflict between the statements amendments stated in this Joint Explanation and the provisions of the consolidated bill in the accompanying Conference Committee Report, the latter shall prevail.

APPROVAL OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT

Submitted to a vote, there being no objection, the Conference Committee Report on the disagreeing provisions of Senate Bill No. 2708 (sic) and House Bill No. 5808 was approved by the Body.

 

 
Share on social media