Petitioners vs cybercrime law slam Senate

A DAY after the Supreme Court issued the temporary restraining order (TRO) against the implementation of Republic Act 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, petitioners against the controversial law slammed the Senate’s declaration that amendatory bills will have to take a backseat, and appealed to Congress to expedite the passage of bills that would repeal several contentious provisions in RA 10175.

In a press conference held in the House of Representatives, several petitioners who filed complaints in the SC slammed the Senate leadership’s declaration that the upper chamber would wait for the Supreme Court’s final decision on RA 10175 before it would begin hearing amendatory bills.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and Senator Edgardo Angara told the media earlier that senators will wait for the SC’s final decision so as to see which provisions should be revised.

“Why should we wait for the Supreme Court’s final decision before we act? Legislators committed a mistake in passing RA 10175, and the TRO issued by the Supreme Court is a cue for Congress to amend the law,” Kabataan Partylist Rep. Raymond Palatino said.

“Before the high court released the TRO, senators and congressmen alike were very active in calling for amendments and repeals. But why is the Senate now dilly-dallying on amendatory bills? It just goes to show that senators are not really sincere in repealing the law,” said Atty. Terry Ridon, Kabataan Partylist National President and general counsel.

“The TRO just delays the implementation of the law. The TRO is a cue for Congress leadership to expedite the processing of repeal bills now filed in both chambers of Congress,” Palatino said. “The TRO released by the high tribunal is effective for 120 days, enough time for Congress to repeal RA 10175,” Palatino added.

Palatino filed House Bill No.6613 in the Lower House last October 1, with Bayan Muna Rep. Teddy Casiño as co-author.

HB 6613 seeks to repeal Sections 4(c)4, 5, 6, 7 and the whole Chapter 4 of RA 10175.

Section 4(c)4, 5, and 6 of RA 10175 relate to online libel, and are unconstitutional due its vagueness, the youth solon explained. Meanwhile, Chapter IV of RA 10175 is also unconstitutional for violating constitutional due process, Palatino said.

“The fight against the Cybercrime Law should not die down with the court’s issuance of a TRO. Instead, we should remain vigilant and even intensify the clamor for the total scrapping of RA 10175,” Palatino said.


About accounting

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply