Must be the Republic Act No. 10175 or the very famous Cybercrime Law.
Maybe we don’t need one, or maybe we really do.
Maybe the authors just want to make a point, or maybe it’s their wrong point of view.
But the fact that it’s getting overrated is also the fact that some government officials enjoy the attention.
First, they proudly threw this law in our face no matter how we react, cry or complain and then second, they sit in front of the camera calmly stating stuffs like, <Shout when it’s All Caps, Calmly recite when it’s Small Caps>
"OH YOU MUST NOT BE AFRAID OF THIS LAW that seems to have some flaws we overlooked but we will be looking at it later on for a revision. Don’t you worry about the libel part, we will review it BUT IT’S ALREADY PASSED!"
Philippines once ratified a law - and then forgotten:
ICCPR Article 19,
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.
And I am crossing my fingers for remembering The Covenant itself. We are already in the thinking that our country is hopeless, but since each and one of us are not, might as well embrace the fact that we still can make it as a group. Must be the Republic Act No. 10175 or the very famous Cybercrime Law. Maybe we don’t need one, or maybe we really do. Maybe the authors just want to make a point, or maybe it’s their wrong point of view.
I AM IN FAVOR OF THE REVISION OF THE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10175.
Disclaimer: They say I am responsible for what I say not for what you don’t understand. Moreover, all statements above are merely opinion, unless otherwise stated. And as a support, allow me to state Article 3:
Section 1. 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.
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized
Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding
Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances