The Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom (abbreviated as MCPIF, or #MCPIF for online usage) is an internet law bill filed in the Congress of the Philippines. The bill contains provisions promoting civil and political rights and Constitutional guarantees for Philippine internet users, such as freedom of expression, as well as provisions on information and communications technology (ICT) policy, ICT4D, internet governance, e-governance, cybersecurity, cyberwarfare, cyberterrorism, and cybercrime.
The Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom was proposed as an alternative to the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 whose enactment was met with mixed reactions.Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012#Reaction Proponents of the bill claim that the #MCPIF is the first crowdsourced bill in the Philippines.
The bill did not pass when 16th Congress went on sine die May 24, 2016. Harry Roque filed the bill as House Bill No. 0666 during the 17th Congress. The bill also did not pass when the 17th Congress went on sine die on May 27, 2019. No legislator had filed the same on the 18th Congress.
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 Definition, summary, and history The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (officially filed as Republic Act 10175) is an ICT law that provides legal definitions, provisions, and penalties for offenses ranging from confidentiality, integrity, and availability of computer data and systems such as illegal interference, to content-related acts such as child pornography. President Benigno Aquino III signed the law and was enacted on September 12, 2012.
Online debates and campaigns against the law influx, even making it to social media. The hashtag #NoToCyberCrimeLaw started to trend as common internet users became vocal of their opposition and apprehensions towards the law.
Early in October 2012, several Philippine government websites such as the Official Gazette, the Senate, and even Senator Tito Sotto's website were targeted by members of the Anonymous hacktivist group from various regions of the world as the Cybercrime Prevention Act took effect. The group launched the operation #OpPhilippines where there was distributed denial of service (DDOS) on these sites, making them inaccessible. A YouTube clip was also released by Anonymous, airing its vocal statement of being against the anti-cybercrime law that ends the freedom of expression of Filipinos.
A total of 15 petitions has been filed against the Cybercrime Law at the Supreme Court. On October 9, 2012, the high tribunal of the Supreme Court has issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. The TRO initially suspended the entire law for a period of 120 days, but the Court later decided to extend the TRO indefinitely while the justices were working the case.
On May 24, 2013, The Department of Justice announced that the contentious online libel provisions of the law were being pushed to be dropped alongside other pending revisions as it awaited the Supreme Court's ruling on its legality.
Precedents to the anti-cybercrime law Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 Prior to this law, the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 (RA 8792) was enacted to acknowledge that aside from the Article II, Section 24 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution providing that, "The State recognizes the vital role of communication and information in nation-building," information and communications technology was emphasized as an up-to-date addition in the Section 2 of the act which declares,"The State recognizes the vital role of information and communications technology (ICT) in nation-building; the need to create an information-friendly environment which supports and ensures the availability, diversity and affordability of ICT products and services..."
There were 4 punishable acts in the law: hacking, introducing viruses to destroy data, pirating intellectual data, and violating The Consumer Act of the Philippines (RA 7394) through electronic messages.
Consumer Act of the Philippines The law was designed to prevent businesses from engaging in fraudulent or specified 'unfair' practices where they gain unwarranted advantage over competitors through the means of deceptive advertising, selling counterfeit products, and the like.
The Consumer Act also provided a set of regulated standards for production, distribution, trade, and promotion applicable to traditional media, which can be accessible online.
Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 The Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (RA 9775) was also a relevant precedent to the law as it was integrated in it to provide a more outlined definition of actions that will be punishable by law. Section 52 of the MCPIF places limits on certain types of speech “inimical to the public interest” where child pornography is filed under.
RA 9775 contains provisions protecting the right to privacy of the child through non-disclosure of his/her identity as well as duties and responsibilities of individuals and groups.
Those applicable under the MCPIF state that internet service providers (ISP) are responsible for notifying the Philippine National Police (PNP) or the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) of any form of activities related or containing child pornography, preserve the evidence for investigation and prosecution purposes, furnish particulars of users who have accesses or attempted to access the content, and ensure access of said content is blocked or filtered. Internet content hosts are also given similar duties.
People vs. Luisa Pineda The Supreme Court of the Philippines in a judgment by Justice Mario Lopez in G.R. No. 262941 (People v. Luisa Pineda, February, 2024) affirmed the lower courts' rulings that found Luisa Pineda guilty of violating the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 and the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 qualified with the use of a computer system (violation of Sections 4(a), (b), and (c) of Republic Act No. (RA) 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009, in relation to Section 4(c)(2) of RA 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012). Pineda was thus sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua, a fine of PHP 2,000,000 and PHP 300,000 in civil damages. Limitations, criticisms, and need for a magna carta The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 was condemned as a threat to freedom of expression on the internet, the media, and online privacy by common netizens and hacktivist groups such as Anonymous. It has also been compared to the Marcos Martial Law era by human rights groups, media freedom advocates, and internet users.. Kabataan Representative Raymond Palatino branded the legislation as ‘e-Martial Law’ as it can lead to censorship and harassment of the media. Prior to its enactment, 15 Supreme Court appeal petitions were lodged against the Law.
Critics such as student protesters associated the law to the anti-piracy law of the United States that had recently failed the previous year. The failed laws includes the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) that aims to give the US government and copyright holders the access to ‘rogue’ websites. Similarly, many Filipino netizens from university students to journalists protested against the law on social media by changing their profile images into a black picture on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms.
These critics do agree that the law would empower the government to suppress cybercrime offenders such as hackers, data thieves, and cybersex offenders. The law was also further criticized of imposing limitations on freedom of expression and freedom of the press, directly violating Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, through the inclusion of online libel as a crime in the passed law. This includes any person who criticizes other persons such as politicians, actors and actresses, and other people online in the forms of posting in social media site such as Facebook or blogs, and the like. The law also included a provision giving the act of online libel a punishment of one degree higher than libel in any other traditional media, making imprisonment for offenders to 12 years compared to the 6 years for libel in traditional media platforms. Online news organization are also susceptible.
Background Miriam Defensor-Santiago Miriam Defensor-Santiago served as senator of the Philippines from 1995 to 2001 and again from 2004 to 2016. She was serving her third term when she filed a bill to repose the Cybercrime Prevention Act on November 12, 2012. It was dubbed as “Anti-Cybercrime Law version 2.0.”
Santiago argued that the Cybercrime Law was unconstitutional due to its vagueness that could be abused to harm netizens. She further claimed that the law violates the right to privacy and protection against illegal searches.
To resolve this, Santiago envisioned a new bill, the Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom, to define and penalize cybercrime through backing from crowdsourcing of netizens. She claims the MCPIF will protect the rights and freedom of expression of the netizens since the proposed bill does not give the government too much power unlike the Cybercrime Prevention Act. Furthermore, it ensures that the government maintains development accordingly to information technology's advancement.
With the MCPIF, Santiago became the first senator who has passed a law that was “crowdsourced” through discussion in social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and e-mail.
Process In response to the signing into law by President Benigno S. Aquino III of Republic Act No. 10175, a group of Filipino lawyers, bloggers, technology experts, and human rights advocates called Democracy.Net.PH spearheaded a crowdsourcing initiative towards the drafting of a law intended to replace it. The proposed Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom was then filed as Senate Bill No. 3327 by Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago on November 12, 2012. The bill remained pending in committee until the 15th Congress adjourned on June 6, 2013.
In the 16th Congress, Senator Santiago re-filed the Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom in the Senate as Senate Bill No. 53 on July 1, 2013. On July 4, 2013, Representative Kimi Cojuangco of the 5th District of Pangasinan filed a counterpart bill in the House of Representatives as House Bill No. 1086. The bill has passed first reading in both chambers of the Philippine legislature.
On July 24, 2013, Senator Paolo Benigno "Bam" Aquino IV filed a version of the #MCPIF, "enhanced with a 'Free WiFi' provision" as Senate Bill No. 1091.
In the Philippine Congress, the crowdsourced bill the first reading in both chambers. MCPIF is based on 4 main points: rights, governance, development, and security. In March 2014, Pierre Tito Galla headed the Senate opening statement and supported its structure, which gave specific details on internet censorship, data discrimination, data privacy, data security, information security, net neutrality, and freedom of information, e-governance, and due process on punishments. The bill has a total of 10 parts and 85 sections, thereby emulating a bill of rights for the Filipino internet users.
The MCPIF calls to repeal the Cybercrime Prevention Act and create an Office of Cybercrime within the Department of Justice to enforce this law.
Contentions and support from external parties Journalists see the MCPIF as a mirror to the Magna Carta for Journalists Bill (HB 2550), which is condemned by media groups such as the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP). HB 2550 is unable to protect the lives, welfare, and safety of journalists due to the limitations in its provisions. It is also used as a tool to over-regulate the media.