On Cybersecurity and Human Rights in the Philippines

Manuel A. Rodriguez II

Cyberspace, as the fifth common domain – after land, sea, air and outer space, is in great need for coordination, cooperation and legal measures among all nations. A cyberspace treaty or a set of treaties at the United Nations level, counting cybersecurity, cybercrime and other cyber hazards, should be the framework for peace, justice and security in the electronic world (Schjolberg & Helie, 2011).

Crimes against peace and security in cyberspace should be established as crimes under international law through a Convention or Protocol at the United Nations level for mankind will in the future be completely dependent on information and communication technologies (Ibid).

With the fast changing innovation of technology is new conduct developed among individuals. Good or bad, these forms of conduct, however, must be classified so as to determine those which are gradually destroying our aim for a better environment (Jalayajay & Garcia, 2011).

Serious crimes in cyberspace should be established under international law, whether or not they are punishable under national law (Id.). The main purpose of enacting a law is to govern the conduct of individuals, and to regulate it so as to promote social order. Any conduct, which seems to be in violation of a person’s right must be governed and regulated by a law (ibid).

The Dawn of the Controversial RA 10175

Last September 12, 2012, Philippine President Benigno Simeon Aquino III signed the Republic Act 10175 (RA 10175) or The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 into law to prevent various electronic offenses including forgery, fraud, and identity theft and child pornography. The new crimes are grouped into two sections in the new RA 10175: Internet Crimes and Commercial Crimes. Another new crime created under the new law is “Cyber-Squatting” which is “the acquisition of a person’s domain name in bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy the reputation and deprive others from registering the same.”

On October 3, 2012 the day one of the effectivity of the controversial law, the Philippine Government faced a bombardment of protests. Major news outlets, bloggers, human rights advocates and other critics turned their social media profile black to express their dismay to the Government and indignation on the said piece of legislation. 

The Philippines has one of Asia's most effervescent democracies. But critics say the law echoes strategy to quiet and keep an eye on critics used by former strongman President Ferdinand Marcos when he imposed martial law in the 1970s (Macaraig, 2012).

Orwellian Society Philippines?

"Orwellian" is an adjective describing the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past, including the "unperson" — a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practiced by modern repressive governments. Often, this includes the circumstances depicted in Orwell’s novels particularly in the award winning novel, Nineteen-eighty-four (Wikipedia.com).

            The most common sense of an “Orwellian” society is the state of complete control of the Government over its subjects, wherein improper thoughts against the Government is a serious crime.  

The dawn of the Cybercrime Prevention Act may have brought to us an online version of an “Orwellian” Philippines. Such a kind of legislation must and should be abhorred for being contrary to the Due Process Clause enshrined on our Constitution, however, declaring a law as unconstitutional is a power vested only in one Supreme Court. As opined by United States Supreme Court Magistrate, Evans Hughes: “Constitution is what the Judges say it is.”

The Constitution is the guide

which I will never abandon.

-          George Washington

Cybersecurity, Human Rights, and Civil Liberties

Internet, the network of networks, is an outstanding way of getting in touch with people and making links. It contributes to the spread of knowledge, to social and economic development and, if nothing else, it can be a way of elevating personal life. But it should not be forgotten that it is also a utensil of power, a place of bazaar where everything can be bought and sold, including personal data malicious software and crimeware tools (Schjolberg & Stein, 2011).

Internet can also be considered as an instrument that allows the development of digital surveillance on a very large scale. This contributes to potentially threatening several human freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of movement (the right to travel and to navigate freely on the Internet), the right to knowledge and information, and the right to respect for private life, family and correspondence. In the world of digital technology, every activity leaves a trace.  Cyberspace is billed as being free but people end up paying for their actions in some way, often payment in kind by providing their personal data (Ibid.).

Connecting the world in a responsible manner should guarantee fundamental human rights and civil liberties as well as the fair and honest handling of personal data. It should help the rethinking of economic models to ensure that personal data are not just considered as an asset to be traded.

Finding a realistic balance between the needs and duties of protection, between the protection of individual and common interests, between the respect of national sovereignty and the need for international collaboration, all the while keeping fundamental human rights in mind, is essential.

It would be reasonable to use these points as a main axis for development for cybersecurity measures. Both public and private players should propose technical, legal and economic cybersecurity solutions which are viable and convincing at national and international levels, in order to allow the police and justice systems to function efficiently without damaging fundamental freedoms. It should be kept in mind, however, that no single measure or security solution can protect against the consequences of injustice (ibid.).

The objective is to offer workable solutions for preserving national sovereignty as well as managing cybersecurity and the fight against cybercrime and terrorism, at both a national and an international level. At the same time, there is a real need to develop measures that foster a fair use of personal data and digital privacy for everyone (individual, organization and state) (ibid.).

Cyberspace is not merely virtual; it represents an idea of the world with a political, and economic and social reality.

Why the Supreme Court Should Abhor RA 10175

Section 1 of Article III of the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution provides that 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.'

However, under Section 19 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act, 'when a computer data is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the Department of Justice (DOJ) shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer.'" No court intervention is needed; the DOJ can go right ahead and compel you to stop publishing your posts (Sta. Maria, 2012). It is like police officials breaking inside your home and takes any property of yours without a warrant issued by a Judge.

            The abovementioned is the strongest reason why the law should be declared unconstitutional. Other crimes being prohibited by the law as found out by the writer of this article is reasonable, in fact some crimes in the new law is already prohibited by the Government prior to the enactment of RA 10175 by other special laws and the Revised Penal Code. However, the duration of the penalty prescribed in the new law is not reasonable.

Conclusion

While it may be true that the law has good intentions, nevertheless the end can never justify the means. The Government exist not only to protect the people but also to preserve their rights, if one of those two tasks is left undone then the Government is a failure. Those two tasks are not options for the Government to perform; they are responsibilities which must be performed. Protect the people and preserve rights.

The rights of the people do not end in courts, in the parliament of the streets, or anywhere on Earth. It extends to the intangible world of social media and on the Internet at large. The web is a mere extension of our physical world therefore the Constitution remains supreme therein.

REFERENCES:

Jalayajay, Betsy Rose & Garcia, Ma. Shiela (2011) DEALING WITH CYBERCRIMES: The Extent and Application of Current Laws. Far Eastern Law Review, Vol. XLII, 2011

Macaraig, Meynardo (2012) Protests as Philippine Cybercrime Law takes effect. www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/276649/scitech/technology/protect-as-philippine-cybercrime-law-takes-effect

Scjolberg, Stein & Ghernaouti – Helie, Solange (2011) A Global Treaty on Cybersecurity and Cybercrime. Cybercrimelaw.net

Sta. Maria, Melencio (2012) An Interaksyon.com Article. www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/276434/scitech/socialmedia/digital-martial-law-10-scary-things-about-the-cybercrime-prevention-act-of-2012

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian

Republic Act 10175. AN ACT DEFINING CYBERCRIME, PROVIDING FOR THE PREVENTION, INVESTIGATION, SUPRESSION AND THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Signed September 12, 2012. Took effect October 30, 2012

Mayo 10: Nasaksihan Kung Babuyin ang Batas at Gahasain si Inang Hustisya

Sabi sa Media, ang eleksyon na naganap nuong nakaraang Mayo 10 ay ang pinaka-matagumpay na halalan sa kasaysayan ng Pilipinas. Sa mata ng mga camera ng media nakita ng buong Pilipinas ang mga pangyayari sa ibang presinto ng pagboto at ang paraan ng pagsasagawa ng eleksyon. Marahil marami sa ating mga kababayan ay sang-ayon sa pahayag na iyon nga ang pinaka-matagumpay na naging halalan sa bansa sapagkat iyon ang pinakita sa kanila ng kani-kanilang mga telebisyon at pinarinig ng kani-kanilang mga radyo noong araw ng Mayo 10.

Maaring totoo nga ang mga iyon sa kabuuang perspektibo o kung ang iyong basehan ay ang eleksyon sa kabuuang bansa. Pero ang tagumpay na kanilang nakita nung araw ng Mayo 10 ay hindi ko nasaksihan sa aking kinalalagyan nuong araw na iyon.

Sa kauna-unahang pagkakataon naranasan ko ang maging isang tagabantay ng boto, hindi para sa isang kandidato kundi para sa isang malinis na halalan. Sumapi ako sa isang grupo ng mga abogado at kapwa ko estudyante ng abogasya para maging “paralegal” sa araw ng halalan at magbantay kung tama ang pag-gamit sa sistema ng eleksyon. Marami ang nagtaka bakit ako at ang aking mga kaibigan ay sumapi sa grupo na iyon sapagkat napakaraming malalaking partido ang lumiligaw sa mga kapwa namin “paralegals” para sumapi sa kanila kapalit ng masasabi nating mgandang bayad.

Oo, tumanggi kami na magtrabaho sa isang partido sapagkat alam namin na hindi lahat ng kanilang kandidato ay aming pinaniniwalaan at siyang magiging laman ng aming balota. Masaya ako at ang aking mga kaibigan kahit nagtrabaho kami bilang mga “paralegal” ng walang bayad kundi salamat nuong araw ng Mayo 10 dahil napatunayan namin sa aming mga sarili na mahal nga namin ang Pilipinas at hindi pala kaya mabili ang pagmamahal na iyon at ang aming prinsipyo.

Mayo 10, nadestino ako at isa sa aking kaibigan sa isang “public school” na ‘di kalayuan sa aking tirahan. Marami sa mga botante sa eskwela na iyon ay personal ko na ka-kilala, doon din ang presinto ng aming barangay kaya ako din na isang “election watchdog volunteer” ay nagawa parin na makaboto.

At doon ay aking nasaksihan na garapalang binababoy ang sistema ng halalan. Ayon sa batas, bawal ang ano mang paraan ng kampanya sa loob ng “30 meters radius” mula sa presinto ng halalan. Pero sa araw na iyon, tila nagmistulang basurang dokyumento ang batas. Mismong mga opisyal ng barangay ang siyang nangunguna sa pagsuway at pagbalewala sa batas pang-eleksyon. Isang Punongbarangay ang nasaksihan ng aking kasama na bumubulong sa isang botante kung sino ang dapat iboto sa loob mismo ng presinto habang hawak ng botante ang kanyang mismong balota. Mga kagawad ng barangay ang siyang nabansagan na “bulong gang” dahil sa kanilang pag bulong ng pangalan ng pinapaborang kandidato sa mismong “gate” ng eskwelahan.

Isa muling Punongbarangay ang siya mismong nag “set-up” ng tolda na may pangalan at kulay ng mga kandidato sa mismong tabi ng eskwelahan, isang malinaw na pag gawa ng krimen ng “unlawful electioneering” na siyang may kaukulang kaparusahan sa ilalim ng batas na pang-eleksyon. Balibalitaang bentahan ng kanilang mga boto, pagtanggap ng regalo mula sa kandidato at garapalang pag alok ng libreng sakay sa jeep ng isang tumatakbo sa pagka-mayor. Isa ring kandidato sa pagka-konsehal ay namataang umaaligid sa tapat ng eskwelahan at suot ang kanyang “trademark” na “campaign get-up.” Ang mga guro na nagtatrabaho sa eleksyon ay siya mismong may hawak ng “parphernalia” ni congressman. Mga armadong pulis na nakapaligid sa presinto ng pagboto na di lalayo ng “50 meters radius” na siyang pinagbabawal ng batas.

Lahat ng aming nasaksihan ay aming sinita sa ngalan ng aming pagiging “paralegal” na kinikilala ng mismong COMELEC. Ngunit kami ay nagmistula lamang propeta na walang nakikinig. Insulto ang aming naramdaman ng sa aming mismong harapan ay ginagahasa si inang hustisya at ang batas ng eleskyon.

Sa aming paaralang pang-abogasya itinuro sa amin an walang sinuman ang mas nakatataas sa batas at dapat itong sundin ng lahat ng mamamayan sa bansa. Sa presintong aming kinalagyan, itinuro ng tadhana sa amin na ang natutunan naming mga batas sa eskwela ay maaaring maging basahang papel sa araw na ang nais ng mga pulitiko ay makamtan ang ninanais na pwesto.

Nakakalungkot isipin para sa isang “paralegal” na siyang may pagmamahal sa konstitusyon at mga batas ay walang magawa sa nangyayari dahil sa dami ng gumagawa ng pambababoy na iyon sa kanyang paligid. Hindi namin makuha humingi ng tulong sa mga opisyal sa aming paligid sapagkat sila mismo ay marumi ang kamay at may pabor sa isang pulitiko na maaring nagbigay palaman sa kanilang bulsa.

Paano natin masasabi na ang isang halalan ay bagong simula para sa ating bansa kung ang paraan ng halalan ay madumi? Paano tayo magtitiwala sa isang naluklok na mambabatas kung ang kanyang pagkapanalo ay bunga ng pandaraya sa batas? Paano tayo uunlad kung tayo mismo ay hindi makasunod ang simpleng patakaran inilatag sa atin?
Nakakalungkot isipin pero ang tagumpay ng Mayo 10 ay hindi nasaksihan ng aking mata.

Mapayapa nga ba ang eleksyon? Sabi nila oo, dahil hindi ganoon karami ang nasawi at nasaktan gaya ng dati. Sa presinto na aking pinagtrabahuhan, wala din namang taong nasaktan. Ang tanging nasaktan lamang ay si Inang Hustisya na sa harapan ko mismo ay ginahasa ng taongbayan para lamang sa panandaliang pang-laman ng tiyan.

Mayo 10, namatay ang batas sa aking mga mata. Nawa ay sa bukas o makalawa makita ko siyang bumangon muli at husgahan ang tiwali.

Love Should Not Stay at Home

by Manuel A. Rodriguez II

As early as my childhood years I can say that I already earned my PhD in Television Watching. I really don’t know until now why during those days I was so fond of facing that magic box even after the cartoons. As a kid I already watch the news, I can say I already had an interest on current events as early as then.

Every election season I see creative political advertisements some of those ads is saw still plays on my memory until now. I hear how “politicos” say their promises via media, after their term I’ll hear grown-ups say “’di naman nya nagawa pangako nya, sayang boto ko.” As a kid I told myself, “isn’t it wrong to break promises? How come these influential individuals can do it as easy as that, why are they not being punished for breaking their promises?”

As I grow up I learned eventually in the school called life the sad fact that promises are meant to be broken.

Today, the society faces so many problems. We are all in a war now, not against nations but against the evils that surrounds us. I have an opinion that the source of this entire problem is simple, the absence of “love” for the Nation in the hearts of the Filipino people.

Saying the term “love” in the context of politics happens very rarely. There is a sociological stigma in the Philippines nowadays that the term “love” is so limited, we have boxed the term probably only in the realm of family, relationships and religion, it is very seldom that the term is used with regards to society, politics and government. That is a sad reality.

If we Filipinos acknowledge that love must and should be a part of the family, how come we neglect to apply it on our society? While we know the fact that the family is the basic unit of the nation, why then are we failing to apply the love as we know it on our society.

If there is one public health problem this nation is facing, it is not any disease or any sickness but it is the absence of love. It was already been proven by scientific studies that a pregnant woman giving birth at the delivery room will need less anesthesia when a love one is beside her, children lessen their probability of becoming drunkards or drug addicts when they regularly share dinner with their parents. We must accept the fact that love is a part of the human physiology, something that is innate in our being; a thing we cannot live without experiencing.

If only our government officers and employees will love the Nation, the Government and the people whom they are serving then the biggest public health I mentioned will be gone.

I believe one factor why love for the Nation is not rampant is because schools don’t teach it and religions rarely mention it on Sunday sermons. We only hear the topic of “loving the Nation” on campaign periods, but as we listen we are all aware that most of the words spoken by “trapos” are lies.

What must be done is to start it in our homes (oh yes, from the grassroots level). As families love each other at their respective homes, they must educate themselves that the love their sharing should not be exclusive. The Nation deserves love as well.

Our society needs love. Love for nation, for the people and for the Divine author of love. No other political platform can surpass love.

This is not a perfect Nation, but it is our only God given piece of land on this planet. We ought to love this Nation Pilipinas.

God bless the Filipino.


MANILA, 21st of NOVEMBER 2009

Why is Philippine Democracy Not Solving Anything?

For years the Philippines has been enjoying a status of being a democratic nation. After the Marcos regime, people believed that democracy has come. People became more jubilant and hopeful to the promises of democracy. Flash forward to the present time, where are the results of those promises?
Our people until now, although they are great believers of democracy are not great believers of its tedious process. They only enjoy its fruits without joining the few that is fighting for it. They thought that after that successful People Power Revolution (which was repeated – yr. 2000) democracy has come and will work on its own, and of course with them as the beneficiaries.
Our professor in Public Administration during college told us that sometime in the 90s Mr. Lee Kuan Yew mentioned that we Filipinos should minimize our democracy. Intrigued by the story, I immediately “googled” it after our class, and found out the entire story and concluded in my mind a personal opinion on the matter.
Singapore then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew spoke to a mass of Filipino audience on a dinner mentioning that as a third world country, we Filipinos cannot afford to be a democratic nation. He added further that what our nation needs is more discipline and less democracy. And ironically his listeners applaud. The same people who were at EDSA during 1986 are the same people who are cheering on the idea that we must forget our democracy. Truly our government even back then is full of hypocrite individuals.
Mr. Lee probably forgot that Singapore is not the Philippines. Our cultures are different, what works on their system may not work on us. Mr. Lee probably forgot that we already experienced authoritarian ruling under the Marcoses, and we all know it was not as successful as his authoritarian government in fact, it’s a chaos. Applying it on our present time, imagine an unpopular PGMA ruling a Philippines under an authoritarian government, can you bear it?
In my personal opinion, the great leader Mr. Lee Kuan Yew is WRONG. His prescription belongs to another time and place, which goes not in accordance with the winds of change all-encompassing the face of the globe. It might work, as it appears to have worked until now, in a small country in size and population. But not in my beloved Pilipinas.
Democracy, not authoritarianism is the key to progress here in our nation. We also have a duty to assure our fellow citizens that we have not erred in choosing a democratic Constitution.
Why then our democracy is not working?
Our only error, which is prevailing in the government, the media, businesses, in the academe and in the marketplace, is that we tend to believe we already have the entirety of the democracy we believe in when all we have is its distorted version. We tend to run the Philippine government through the newspapers and decide what is good to the population on the basis of shocking news headlines and less than informed media, commentaries and educated predicaments.
We Filipinos value entertainment more than education. Our most popular role models are not the ones who are productive workers but those who are only a product of pinoy playful imagination.
Our error is that we elect men and women to high office expecting them to change the status quo when in fact they cannot even change themselves. We often hear them talk about their priority project for progress or their new movement to recover the moral tradition without them first accepting the teachings of morality and getting rid of their immoral attachments.
We Filipinos from every walk of life must realize that the system will not work by itself. We must make the system work. We already have the tool to progress, what we must now do is to learn how to use the tool. As of now, what we can do is to practice our democratic ideals, teach our democratic ideals to our Children and tell them not to commit the mistake our elders did in the past (and continuously doing). And pray to the Almighty to grant our people the wisdom. Yes, it is still a long way to go, but it is the only way.
Even as I speak out my mind here, some individuals may already lose their hope on democracy since they idolize the revered foreigner Mr. Lee and drawing up plans on how to impose the Mr. Lee system here in our nation. Some may even disagree with my opinion regarding the Marcos regime and the PGMA presidency. They may never understand me, yet in the spirit of democracy I respect differing opinions.
Mabuhay tayong lahat!

APRIL 5, 2009, MANILA

With This We Call For Change

“With This We Call For Change”
By Manuel Rodriguez II, UST - Students' Democratic Party(SDP)

“…DEMOCRACY… IT IS OUR DUTY NOW, IN DANGER AS IN SECURITY, TO UPHOLD AND SUSTAIN IT WITH ALL THAT WE HAVE AND ARE.”
-excerpt from the Democratic Creed by Stephen Bennet
(Standard creed of the SDP 1st party convention)

The case of Mr. Jocjoc Bolante on the 728 million pesos fund for fertilizers, the disappearance of the 3.1 billion budget for irrigation, Arroyo’s fraudulent acts on the 2004 national elections that made her an illegitimate president, left and right cases of extra-judicial killings and the most recent and controversial NBN-ZTE deal scandal.

For 7 years the Arroyo regime failed to uphold the trust of the Filipino nation, our country is left tortured and wounded. The continuous issues and scandals in the country’s political arena have effectively placed into the spotlight the crisis in the administration of Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo – the crisis which has transformed the people’s search for truth and justice into an advocacy to oust an immoral leader of the land.

The whole truth about the anomalous NBN-ZTE contract is slowly being revealed by the statements of a very credible individual in the persona of our fellow Thomasian, Eng’r Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada, former President of PhilForest, a corporation owned by the government. According to Lozada, Mr. Jose Miguel “Mike”Arroyo the husband of the President of the Republic of the Philippines, and the former ComElec Chairperson Benjamin Abalos are one of the people who are very willing to close the deal between the Philippines and China, because of their self interests to earn a 65 million to 130 million US dollars commission.

While majority of our people live their everyday life with only 65 pesos or lower on their pockets, people like Mr. Arroyo and Mr. Abalos are earning millions without sweat.

Under this kind of administration our search for truth will not and never be easy and will face many crossroads and obstacles. We can expect the government to discredit witness like Eng’r Lozada and block possible bearer of truth like Sec. Romulo Neri of CHEd.

If the University of Santo Tomas (UST) demands from its students which are their main stakeholders commitment, compassion and competence, then the nation as the same expect from the Thomasians to make use of their education in defining and knowing the difference between justice and injustice with very strong fervor.

In a three page paper titled “Why I Cannot and Will Not Support Calls for the Presidents’ Resignation,” pro- administration priest Fr. Ranhillio Calangan- Aquino pointed out that “when one protests his earnestness in search for truth, and at the same time presses for the resignation of the President (PGMA), one is guilty ofperformative contradiction.”

“If you search for truth, you do not know yet the whether she is guilty or not. But if you do know this yet, what reason is there to ask her to resign?” Fr. Aquino retorted.

My response to his statement? It is not that the current President has lost her capacity to govern the country, however due to many controversial events, I believe that the President should step down or be ousted from her position because of her inability to gain the trust of the Filipino people. Leadership requires influence; clearly the President has lost that.
With this we call for change.

MARCH 15, 2008, MANILA