Here is my position on the most contested Republic Act No. 10175. I am taking the unpopular side of this much heated topic. I am aware of the risk of being infamous very early on the life of this blog because of this view. I usually take unpopular stands on topics in the hope of espousing democratic discussion. In this way, not only you learn, but I also. That being said, please be open also in your thoughts on things you are against.
It is very timely that crimes aided by computers and crimes committed via the Internet be punished. Why should crimes done online be exempted from the law? I would change my view on this if, in the future, even a portion of the cyberspace can completely disconnect from the real world.
That portion of the cyberspace can have its own people, its own government, its own laws, or the absence thereof. But for now, netizens are also citizens of a real world.
That portion of the cyberspace can have its own people, its own government, its own laws, or the absence thereof. But for now, netizens are also citizens of a real world.
It is wrong to say that a flawed law should never be passed. That it should automatically be repealed, if not, be disobeyed. This is tantamount to call to anarchy as no law will be left. There is no perfect human law as there is no perfect human justice.
Do we need to worry then that there is no perfect statute being passed by parliament? No. Now, the good thing about laws is that they are not monolithic nor static. Laws could be changed as society develops.
Furthermore, there is multi-level of remedies to faulty laws, first, as I have explained above, is law revision by Congress. Another is judicial review by the Supreme Court. Then there are also remedies when the statute is vague. An example is jurisprudence creation by the courts during actual use of the laws in trials. Another is the implementing rules that must be crafted by the Executive branch.
Do we need to worry then that there is no perfect statute being passed by parliament? No. Now, the good thing about laws is that they are not monolithic nor static. Laws could be changed as society develops.
Furthermore, there is multi-level of remedies to faulty laws, first, as I have explained above, is law revision by Congress. Another is judicial review by the Supreme Court. Then there are also remedies when the statute is vague. An example is jurisprudence creation by the courts during actual use of the laws in trials. Another is the implementing rules that must be crafted by the Executive branch.
It is also wrong to say that a new law should not be passed in favor of revising old laws. There is no difference really, technically. A new law with a repealing clause has the same effect as revising old laws. Also, the Cybercrime Prevention Act has the goal of unifying all cybercrimes into one single statute. R.A. 10175 states that:
Section 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 (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be.
This is like creating a Cyber Penal Code of the Philippines! This is very revolutionary.
Now, is this provision wrong in imposing a stricter punishment for an equivalent crime done via the cyberspace? Others will argue that it should be lower instead or no criminal liabilities should be imposed altogether because it is done in cyberspace anyways. Just like my first argument, the cyberspace have repercussions on the real world as they are inseparable.
Think of the cyberspace as a technology, the Internet, and compare with other technological advancements, for example firearms. The Revised Penal Code even has a separate provision [Article 254] just for the use of firearms that could result in injuring another person. Notwithstanding the fact that the use of firearms could also result in incapacity, mutilation, or even death of that other person, where it could result in higher penalties.
Putting of aggravating circumstances in laws that result in higher penalties is nothing new. In this case, the use of information and communications technology, the Internet or mobile/cellular services, is like an aggravating circumstance. It is cheap, it is fast, and it is wide-reaching. Is that not aggravating enough?
Now, is this provision wrong in imposing a stricter punishment for an equivalent crime done via the cyberspace? Others will argue that it should be lower instead or no criminal liabilities should be imposed altogether because it is done in cyberspace anyways. Just like my first argument, the cyberspace have repercussions on the real world as they are inseparable.
Think of the cyberspace as a technology, the Internet, and compare with other technological advancements, for example firearms. The Revised Penal Code even has a separate provision [Article 254] just for the use of firearms that could result in injuring another person. Notwithstanding the fact that the use of firearms could also result in incapacity, mutilation, or even death of that other person, where it could result in higher penalties.
Putting of aggravating circumstances in laws that result in higher penalties is nothing new. In this case, the use of information and communications technology, the Internet or mobile/cellular services, is like an aggravating circumstance. It is cheap, it is fast, and it is wide-reaching. Is that not aggravating enough?
Read the second part: In Defense of the Cyber Penal Code of the Philippines
No comments:
Post a Comment