A four month respite has been ordered by the Supreme Court (SC) against the implementation of the controversial  Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act.
At the close of yesterday’s en banc session, the tribunal ordered agencies  led by the Department of Justice (DoJ) to stop the implementation and enforcement of the entire law for 120 days.
The ruling came amid a street protest outside the SC compound in Manila by activists insisting on unbridled freedom of expression online. Oral arguments were also ordered by the SC on the case by Jan. 15 next year.
A red firetruck ostensibly to douse protesters was stationed inside the SC compound, the first time such a precaution has been undertaken by the court in recent memory.
“Now, therefore, effective immediately and for a period of one hundred twenty days, You, Respondents, your agents, representatives, or persons acting in your place or stead, are hereby enjoined from implementing and/or enforcing republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012,” read the notice of resolution signed by SC Clerk of Court Enriqueta Vidal.
The high tribunal also directed respondents to

answer the petitions within 10 days from receipt of notice.
A handful of petitions is now pending in the SC and has named a number of government officials as respondents.
Moments after the SC issued a the  temporary restraining order (TRO), Malacañang said it respects the decision of the high court.
However, the Palace will seek a clarification from the SC detailing the extent of the ruling.
President Aquino’s deputy spokesman Abigail Valte said the Aquino  administration consistently abides by whatever the court says, but said clarifications from the court wll be made.
“We will have to ask because it depends on coverage of the TRO itself. If the TRO will say that (TRO covers entire law). In the meantime, the TRO is enforced, that  includes the IRR (implementing rules and regulations) — the formulation. We’ll have to see the TRO—the actual text of the TRO itself,” Valte saod.
The Palace official said President Aquino’s preference is  that of favoring full implementation of the controversial law which has other equally important and urgent components like the cyber fraud, child pornography, identity theft, among others.
“The take down clause — That really depends on what was issued by the Supreme Court if it is in whole or in part. But we’d like to see it first”, added Valte who claims the high tribunal can  issue a TRO just on provisions being questioned.
Valte also expressed doubt whether legislators who want the controversial bill amended would still have enough time to come up with the amended version, citing the tedious process in amending laws, with just two weeks left for them to get the work done.
But Senate leaders remained firm  in their position of dismissing the possibility of the SCstriking down the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 despite the TRO.
Both Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and the principal sponsor of the law, Sen. Edgardo Angara, were one in saying that the SC will likely uphold the law even if the high court will “kill” some of the provisions of the now controversial law.
“I think ultimately the SC will uphold the law. They may find some provisions vague or unnecessary, they may strike down those provisions but I don’t think they will ever strike down the whole law. The entire law,” Angara said, dismissing assertions of those protesting R.A. 10175 that the TRO was a major setback in proving the legality of the new law.
Enrile said the SC, normally will not strike down the entire law “unless it is very palpable in violating the Constitution.”
“They will only strike down the portions that are unconstitutional,” he said, adding that the TRO is only meant not to enforce it yet until the SC  Court can really look at the issue involved” he said, adding that the TRO merely means the high court wants to study it  very well and this must be respected.
“What the cyberlaw prevention act does is only to regulate socially destructive acts because you cannot enjoy your right fully and confidently if others have an equal right to interfere with your right. That’s the balancing act that you’ve got to do because this is a new frontier. This is an area that is unregulated but if you read both the data privacy and the cyberlaw, you will come to the conclusion that it in fact expands the right of the user and protects the communication that he or she transmits.
Angara admitted that he’s willing to have the some of the provisions left out such as the extra penalty carried by the law but not in deleting the provision on online libel. He said the law must stay.  
“As I said the solution  is to repeal the mother law, which is the Revised Penal Code which I think (Sen. Francis) Chiz (Escudero) is trying to do (in pursuing the bill seeking to decriminalize libel),” he said.
For Sen.Miriam Santiago, the 120-day TRO may last until after the oral arguments have been heard, which would be sometime in January next year may well be a “contest, a competition between the decision of the Supreme Court and the amended law, which we hope to produce here.”
She added: “We are relying on the decision of the Supreme Court because number one, this is a landmark tradition. It will concern the right of free speech in the digital age. Number two, it will be a landmark decision because it will give the Supreme Court the opportunity to explain why “free speech” occupies a so-called preferred position in our Constitution. What is the meaning of preferred position? This refers that there are many civil and political rights that are protected in our Bill of Rights. The question is, what does the Supreme Court mean when it says that speech occupies a preferred position? As a general rule, every law passed by Congress enjoys the presumption of constitutionality. This case gives the Supreme Court the opportunity to underline the fact that whenever a law passed by Congress seeks to limit free speech, there is no presumption of constitutionality. I even hold the extreme position that a law, such as the Cybercrime Prevention Act, should be presumed unconstitutional. That is the meaning of speech enjoys a preferred position.”
Earlier, a public  forum for stakeholders in the enforcement of the draconian Cybercrime Law hosted by the DoJ lost steam yesterday after the SC issued the TRO.
Interestingly the public consultation occurred after the law had already been signed by president.
Justice secretary Leila de LIma who heads the agency which will have the so-called “take down” powers to deny access to internet content deemed criminal said they will abide with the SC ruling which is in effect till January of next year.
“The DoJ  operates under the framework  of the rule of the law. The SC TRO  is an exercise of the power of judicial review. We respect and will abide by it. We will present the arguments outlined in the historic forum on cybercrime earlier formally before the high court in due time. Our advocacy for a safe cyberspace and interdiction of organized crime will continue.”she said.
Speaking at the start of the forum, Rep. Freddie Tinga said lawmakers were acting in good faith and meant only  to regulate the growing  use of the internet.
Assistant DoJ Secretary Geronimo Sy, head of DoJ’s new cybercrime office, said an initial test case was  filed on the day R.A. 10175 took effect last Oct. 3 by a 17-year-old girl who sought the takedown a video circulating in the Internet for two years now which shows her having sex with a guy he used to date.
Sy said the complaint, which was received by the office of D Lima through email, has been “verified” and will be the “test case” of the new law.But he admitted his office has yet to act on the complaint yet, including requesting the websites involved to remove the video, since the new law has no implementing rules and regulations yet.
“As early as 2000, there have been special penal laws that amended some provisions in the Revised Penal Code,” he explained. He also compared the new law with R.A. 8484 (Access Devices Regulation Act), where criminals are “made liable for separate crimes committed in separate worlds.”
He said critics of the law made an “incorrect appreciation” of its provision on libel when they claimed punishment for online libel is up to 12 years of imprisonment.
“That is an incorrect appreciation of the law. Presently, it is 6 months to 4 years. The correct reading is 4 years to 8 years. You may or may not agree with the penalty but I just want to correct an objective fact in the petitions. The fine is 600 to 6,000 pesos,” he clarified.
Sy claimed that the new anti-cybercrime law does not give the DoJ the “takedown” power or the authority to arbitrarily shut down websites, saying they will never touch content data without court order. The DoJ can only restrict or block websites presenting clear and present danger like showing patently illegal acts such as rape, how to make IEDs (improvised explosive devices), creating panic or fear and websites on mass suicides,” he clarified, adding that they are proposing to limit the restriction to just three days.
With Fernan J. Angeles