Republic Act (RA) 10844, otherwise known as the “Department of Information and Communication Technology Act of 2015”, was signed into law on May 23, 2016. In accordance with this law, the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) shall be the primary policy, planning, coordinating, implementing and administrative entity of the Executive Branch of the government that is mandated to plan, develop and promote
the national ICT-development agenda. Following RA 10884, the Cybercrime Prevention and Coordinating Center (CICC), which was created upon the approval of RA 10175, or the “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012”, became an attached agency of the DICT.
According to the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, the CICC will have the following powers and functions, among others:
- To formulate a national cybersecurity plan and extend immediate assistance for the suppression of real-time commission of cyber-crime offenses through a computer emergency-response team;
- To coordinate the preparation of appropriate and effective measures to prevent and suppress cyber-crime activities as provided for in RA 10175;
- To monitor cyber-crime cases being bandied by participating law-enforcement and prosecution agencies; and
- To facilitate international cooperation on intelligence, investigations, training and capacity building related to cyber-crime prevention, suppression and prosecution;
****
Information Secretary Rodolfo A. Salalima, in a recent news briefing in Malacañang, announced that his office (presumably through the CICC) is “currently investigating suspects who are aiding Maute terrorists using online propaganda”. These terrorists last month rampaged through Marawi, allegedly waving the black flags of the Islamic State of Iran and Syria (ISIS) group. At the early stages of the fighting, over 300 have been left dead, and the city’s 200,000 residents have fled or have been evacuated to nearby cities. The number of fatalities continues to increase, as the fighting continues unabated.
The cyberworld is flooded with online propaganda both spreading and fighting terrorist ideology. Reports have shown that ISIS currently controls 90,000 Twitter profiles, apart from other social media accounts, such as Facebook, YouTube and Tumblr. This increases the group’s reach and exposure. Twitter functionalities, such as hashtags, are also heavily used by terrorists to archive, upload and disseminate propaganda. Unlike personal or public accounts, Twitter does not suspend or block hashtags. ISIS members are also known for using online, end-to-end messaging applications, such as Telegram and WhatsApp. In the Philippines, with 44 million Internet users and 47 million active Facebook accounts, it is correct for the DICT to monitor these accounts and for Salalima to issue a stern warning that people “who do sedition or incite people via the cyber world or via Internet xxx will be investigated for cyber rebellion or cyber sedition”. (Rappler.com)
He called upon the Department of Justice and the National Bureau of Investigation to conduct an investigation into these online activities tending toward cyber rebellion or cyber sedition.
This has baffled the legal circles because, by their very nature, there can be no such crimes in cyber space. Under the Revised Penal Code, sedition and rebellion are defined as follows:
- Article 134. Rebellion or insurrection—How committed. The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said government or its laws, the territory of the Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, or depriving the Chief Executive or the legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives. (As amended by RA 6968, October 24, 1990.)
- Article 139. Sedition—How committed. The crime of sedition is committed by persons who rise publicly and tumultuously in order to attain by force, intimidation or by other means outside of legal methods, any of the following objects:
- To prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election;
- To prevent the national government, or any provincial or municipal government, or any public officer thereof, from freely exercising its or his functions, or prevent the execution of any administrative order;
- To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer or employee;
- To commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private persons or any social class; and
- To despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, or the National Government xxx of all its property or any part thereof. (As amended by Com. Act 202.)
From the above definition, it is obvious that cyber sedition cannot be based on sedition as defined in the Revised Penal Code, because modern technology does not yet allow persons to “rise publicly and tumultuously” in cyber space. The same can be said about cyber rebellion or cyber insurrection, as one cannot “rise publicly and take arms against the Government” via the Internet.
Whatever name we wish to call it, the Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175), specifically Section 6 thereof, punishes all crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code “committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies”. This law adds further that “the penalty to be impose shall be one degree higher” in cyber space. Realizing the error in his previous pronouncement, Salalima corrected himself by saying he meant “inciting to rebellion or insurrection” and “inciting to sedition”, defined under Article 138 and 142 of the Revised Penal Code, as follows:
- Article 138. Inciting to rebellion or insurrection. The penalty of prison mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who, without taking arms or being in open hostility against the government, shall incite others to the execution of any of the acts specified in Article 134 of this Code, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other representations tending to the same end. (As restored by Executive
Order 187.) - Article 142. Inciting to sedition. The penalty of prison correccional in its maximum period and a fine not exceeding P2,000 shall be imposed upon any person who, without taking any direct part in the crime of sedition, should incite others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons, banners, or other representations tending to the same end, or upon any person or persons who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libel against the government of the Philippines, or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof, or which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the functions of his office, or which tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which lead or tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and order of the government, or who shall knowingly conceal such evil practices. (Restored by EO 187.)
The crime, therefore, should be “cyber incitement” not “cyber sedition” nor “cyber rebellion” or “cyber insurrection”. I recently shared a video of Maute members burning and destroying religious icons in Saint Mary’s Cathedral at Marawi. I wanted to share my horror, anger and grief over these barbaric acts. I wanted my Facebook friends to feel the same hatred and desire for revenge I then felt for these terrorists, whether Maute or Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
I know now that I can be penalized for “cyber incitement.” The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) recently asked Facebook Philippines to shut down at least 63 accounts of Maute militants and their supporters for “spreading extremist ideas and misinformation, making the fight against terrorism more difficult”. (Rappler.com) No similar request was made by the AFP to take down accounts, posts, tags condemning the Mautes, ISIS and other extremists.
Personally, I don’t mind being prosecuted for “cyber incitement” (I could always use my constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression as my defense). For as long as there is evil in this world as the Mautes and ISIS, I will continue to post in my Facebook account even if it incites hatred or revenge. Indeed, hatred is not the problem—we should be more concerned if our people meet these barbaric dastardly acts with indifference. When our people become indifferent, then our country truly has a problem.