Provide your email for confirmation

Tell us a bit about yourself

country *

Please provide your email address

welcome to Rappler

Login

To share your thoughts

Don't have an account?

Login with email

Check your inbox

We just sent a link to your inbox. Click the link to continue signing in. Can’t find it? Check your spam & junk mail.

Didn't get a link?

Use password?

Login with email

Reset password?

Please use the email you used to register and we will send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

We just sent a link to your inbox. Click the link to continue resetting your password. Can’t find it? Check your spam & junk mail.

Didn't get a link?

Sign up

Ready to get started

Already have an account?

Sign up with email

By signing up you agree to Rappler’s Terms and Conditions and Privacy

Check your inbox

We just sent a link to your inbox. Click the link to continue registering. Can’t find it? Check your spam & junk mail.

Didn't get a link?

Join Rappler+

Join Move

How often would you like to pay?

Annual Subscription

Monthly Subscription

Your payment was interrupted

Exiting the registration flow at this point will mean you will loose your progress

Your payment didn’t go through

Exiting the registration flow at this point will mean you will loose your progress

welcome to Rappler+

welcome to Move

welcome to Move & Rappler+

FULL TEXT: Cybercrime law constitutional – Supreme Court

MANILA, Philippines (UPDATED) – On Tuesday, February 18, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most provisions of Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

The SC ruled that the controversial provision on online libel is constitutional, but is subject to one condition: only the original author, not those who receive or react to the post, can be penalized.

Meanwhile, 3 provisions were voted down as categorically unconstitutional:

The SC decided that granting power to the Department of Justice to restrict computer data on the basis of prima facie or initially observed evidence was not in keeping with the Constitution. The said automatic take-down clause is found in Section 19 of the cybercrime prevention law.

The ruling on online libel was met with indignation by many netizens, who posted tweets using #NonLibelousTweet. (READ: Libel in the age of like)

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago called the libel ruling erroneous. Senator Bongbong Marcos, on the other hand, filed a bill that would reduce the penalty for online libel.

Below is the decision of the Supreme Court on the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 in its entirety, and the separate dissenting and concurring opinions of some of the SC justices.

Dissenting and concurring opinion of Justice Leonen:

Dissenting and concurring opinion of Justice Carpio:

Concurring opinion of Justice Brion:

Dissenting and concurring opinion of Chief Justice Sereno:

– Rappler.com